Claiming to have relied on an unqualified opinion and December 31, 2005 audited financial statements Hasting & Ford LLP issued for Jasper Manufacturing, Dual Manufacturing has sued Hasting & Ford to recover \(\$ 1.5\) million Dual paid to purchase the assets of Jasper, a Connecticut company. Dual claims that several letters to Jasper made clear Dual's concern that the carrying value of some of Jasper's tangible assets were uncertain. For example, a December 5, 2005 letter from Raphael Jeter, Dual president, to Lisa Gotshal, Jasper's president, read in part as follows:
The purchase price will be based in part on the carrying value of inventory and fixed assets. However, as you told us, the financial statements you submitted to us are unaudited. We await 2005 audited financial statements which you told us will be forthcoming by the end of February.
Dual claims the engagement team was told repeatedly that, owing to Dual's inability to fulfill customer orders, the company was actively seeking either to acquire a company or to acquire assets. In response, Hasting \& Ford claims that Dual produced no evidence to prove that Dual was in privity and, therefore, that Hasting & Ford owed Dual no duty.
Required: The case will be tried in a Credit Alliance jurisdiction. Is Dual Manufacturing entitled to recover from Hasting \& Ford? Why or why not?