Jenny Vs Richard Case Study
Jenny vs. Angie and Richard
Part A:
1. Introduction to the case
Following notations are used for simplicity of explanation:
Hereafter, Jenny will be referred to as the Plaintiff;
Angie to be referred to as defendant 1;
Richard to be referred to as defendant 2.
The plaintiff here received some money as a result of a golden-handshake after deciding to retire. The total sum of which is $500, 000, which she intends to invest in real-estate. Upon being approached by defendant 1 with a proposal of "Sure-thing Property Development Pty Ltd" (Sure-thing), a property development project on a small island of Moreton Bay, plaintiff turns to her financial advisor, George to find the feasibility and forecast the profits or losses for the deal. Defendant 1 assures the plaintiff of tripling the investment amount in time duration of 6 months. As George asks for a month to review the company and the project as well as a sum of $12, 000 to work on the financial report, plaintiff turns to her …show more content…
Since the subsection states clearly that defendant 1 indulged in offering services under false pretence subject to peer review. This becomes a case of forfeiting standard care for professionals2 (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 - SECT 22 standard of care for professionals,” 2003). As clearly stated, a professional is liable to the breach of a duty in case they forgo the peer professional opinion unless contrary litigation, legislation is present. In this case, there was enough evidence available to prove that the investment in Sure-thing was not sound due to the company's liability. In such circumstances, the standard care duty by defendant 1 ensures informing the plaintiff about the reasonable risk involved in investing the money.3 (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1936”). Defendant 1 owes a duty of care as a professional duty.4 (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 - SECT 28 application of pt 2,”
Part A:
1. Introduction to the case
Following notations are used for simplicity of explanation:
Hereafter, Jenny will be referred to as the Plaintiff;
Angie to be referred to as defendant 1;
Richard to be referred to as defendant 2.
The plaintiff here received some money as a result of a golden-handshake after deciding to retire. The total sum of which is $500, 000, which she intends to invest in real-estate. Upon being approached by defendant 1 with a proposal of "Sure-thing Property Development Pty Ltd" (Sure-thing), a property development project on a small island of Moreton Bay, plaintiff turns to her financial advisor, George to find the feasibility and forecast the profits or losses for the deal. Defendant 1 assures the plaintiff of tripling the investment amount in time duration of 6 months. As George asks for a month to review the company and the project as well as a sum of $12, 000 to work on the financial report, plaintiff turns to her …show more content…
Since the subsection states clearly that defendant 1 indulged in offering services under false pretence subject to peer review. This becomes a case of forfeiting standard care for professionals2 (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 - SECT 22 standard of care for professionals,” 2003). As clearly stated, a professional is liable to the breach of a duty in case they forgo the peer professional opinion unless contrary litigation, legislation is present. In this case, there was enough evidence available to prove that the investment in Sure-thing was not sound due to the company's liability. In such circumstances, the standard care duty by defendant 1 ensures informing the plaintiff about the reasonable risk involved in investing the money.3 (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1936”). Defendant 1 owes a duty of care as a professional duty.4 (“CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2003 - SECT 28 application of pt 2,”