Law of Investment Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Law of Investment - Assignment Example Issues under the Relevant Legislation and the Law Relating To Negligence, Contract and Fiduciary Duty It is clear that there are legal issues in this case that concern fiduciary duty and negligence law. In the first place, the case states expressly that there is a contract between Charlie and Denise, or Bandito Financial Advisors and Planners. The agreement meets all the legal elements and felicity conditions needed to make a contract. Specifically, there is an offer being advanced for an acceptance. On the one hand, Denise and her financial advisory company are extending an offer to Charlie, the offer being the issuance of financial advice. Charlie, on the other hand, remits 300,000 dollars to Denise, thereby signifying his acceptance of the offer. The advisory services offered by Denise and the money exchanged signify the cooperation, as both Denise and Charlie are of legal age and sound mind. The latter means that they have entered a legal relation. There are formalities in the ag reement, and both parties entered the agreement intentionally. Again, there is a profound aspect of certainty. The Sales of Goods Act of 1896 clearly specifies all these conditions, thereby making the agreement between Charlie and Denise a full-fledged contract. ... A prudent and reasonable legal person could have ensured that it meets all the aspects of the bargain that were in the contract. Again, according to the Australian tort law, Denise and her company will be found guilty of having used misrepresentation. Misrepresentation may, in turn, emanate from the use of deceit, defamation, negligent advice, innocent misrepresentation, passing off and injurious falsehood. In the case at hand, it is clear that Denise used injurious falsehood since she presented herself as a licensed and qualified financial advisor, yet she is not. Australian tort law is strict in relation to negligence, since it acts on both willful failure and failure that stems from an oversight (Marshal 525). In the determination of negligence, the case Jaensch v Coffey set precedence that has been followed heretofore. In this case, there must be the determination of proximity between the defendant and the plaintiff as being sufficient enough to cause injury or loss to the plaint iff. In this case, it is obvious that Charlie and Denise interacted (in order to enter a contract of financial nature). It is this interaction that directly led to Charlie’s forfeiture of his 300,000 due to Denise’s injurious falsehood. In this case, the forfeiture of the money amounts to harm. Denise also uses negligent advice to rid Charlie of his money. She, for instance, wrongly advises Charlie that upon investing 300,000 dollars he will be able to make 10% profit during the first year and 25% profit by the third year. The culpability of Denise and her advisory agency is further compounded when the concept of fiduciary is introduced. By the term fiduciary duty, it is meant that the