Young v. Jones case brief

Young v. Jones (D.S.C. 1992)

FACTS
Case concerns “partnership by estoppel”
Plaintiffs were investors who had relied on an erroneous audit by PW-Bahamas, but
were not customers of PW-Bahamas.
They were suing PW-Bahamas and wanted to rope in the U.S. national Price
Waterhouse partnership

RULES
South Carolina law required that plaintiffs ‘extend credit’ to PW-Bahamas in reliance
on its relationship with PW-US. In this case, since the plaintiffs were not clients of
PW-Bahamas, they could not hold PW-US liable under a theory of partnership by
estoppel.

ANALYSIS
Note that this case was decided on contract grounds (privity) and did not reach the
question of whether PW-US would have been liable if the plaintiffs had been clients
of PW-Bahamas.