11 In my view the argument proceeds on an inaccurate basis. The exercise referred to in paragraphs 49 and 50 was plainly an attempt by the referee to assess whether it was reasonable to rely upon the partnership inventory figures. As appears from his report, he faced difficulties in arriving at his own valuation of the inventory at the relevant times because it had been calculated using unconventional methods. For example, Mr Maric, the accountant of the first defendant, asserted that the inventory was valued using the Retail Inventory Method. The referee's view was that, based on the prescription of RIM in the Accounting Standard, it had not been properly utilised[7]. The Australian Accounting Standard AASB 1019, in particular, states that the inventory must be valued at the lower of cost or net realisable value, where "net realisable value" is defined as the future proceeds from the sale of the inventory estimated at the reporting date.[8] The approach taken by the defendant and by Mr Whitehead was to determine a standard cost of each product which took account of the original cost of the item but also other matters which were described as a "buffer" items, namely, freight and shipping costs, wastage, obsolescence, damage, currency fluctuations, shrinkage and product risk assessment, product turnover and the estimated holding period. The referee reported that on the information available he was not able to analyse the standard costs including the buffer.[9]