In L. B. Laboratories, Inc. v. Mitchell (1952) 39 Cal.2d 56, the court relied on the fact that the accountant had "contracted to do a specific thing, namely, to prepare and file plaintiff's income tax returns in the time required by law. There is no equivocation or shading of the obligation. It was not limited to the exercise of ordinary care. It was a positive, specific duty which he assumed." (L. B. Laboratories, supra, 39 Cal.2d at p. 63.) The accountant failed to review plaintiff's records or file the returns on time. As a result, plaintiff had to pay penalties on the taxes due. (Id. at p. 58.) Unlike the situation in which an accountant is employed generally to audit a client's books and "assumes the general obligation to exercise due care," the accountant had agreed to do a specific thing, and the longer contract statute of limitations thus applied. (Id. at p. 63.) The court in L. B. Laboratories, supra, 39 Cal.2d 56 stated that the assumption of an accountant of the general obligation to exercise due care in conducting an audit is not the sort of "positive, specific duty" which suggests that the gravamen of the claim is for breach of contract rather than professional negligence. (Id. at p. 63.)