Legal Redress for Investment Losses

Brief Facts

Following series of deliberations and advices from his friend Jason and an acquaintance, one Sion, whom he had known through his employer, Mark relies on their advices to invest all that his late Aunt had left him. On the strength of his advice and being the professional that he is, Jason assures Mark that his intended investment with Global Bubble Company is a good one. Being a stockbroker that she is and based on her personal undertaking, Sion convinces Mark that Global Company is a good place to invest. Mark loses all his investment at the tail end.

Issues for determination

The main issue is whether Mark has any legal redress to recover his loses from Sian, Jason and the Weekly Investment News.

The rule of law applicable

The main rule of law applicable in this scenario and under which Mark can claim and recover his loses is tort arising out of negligence from the parties involved (Steele, 2010).

Application of the law

There is no much difference between tort of negligence and professional negligence. The bottom line is that in both cases, one must owe the other a duty to do or not to do something and, in the aftermath, one must have failed to act or not act in a reasonable manner (Abraham, 2011). Only that in claims involving professionals, it is trite practice to say that courts would normally place a higher duty of care on the defendant professional. There are four known requirements for a claim in tort of negligence to suffice. Firstly, the defendant must owe the claimant a duty of care that can reasonably avert the injuries or harm that the claimant suffered. Secondly, it must be established that the defendant breached that duty of care thereby occasioning the harm or damage. Thirdly, it must be established that the defendant’s negligence are the factual causation in the sense that were it not for the defendants act or omission, the claimant would not have suffered the loss or damage. The defendant’s act or omission also ought to be the legal cause for loss or damage. Finally, that damage must have been occasioned by the action or omission and the same can rightly be compensated by courts in monetary consideration (Laleng, 2011)

In the instant case, Sion is a stockbroker who, in her own words, has done her research and knows how shares run in the market. She convinces Mark about Global Bubble Company and even undertakes to do the purchase on his behalf. In the face of it, Sion translates into a professional who owes the people she interacts with a duty of care. In this case, she owed Mark a duty of care in so far as giving proper advice is concerned. By going an extra mile to give a personal undertaking to purchase the shares on Mark’s behalf points to someone who is certain about her work and who has conducted proper and due diligence to be able to speak from a point of information (Herron, Powell, and Silvaggio, 2016). It is this duty that is breached and results to loss to mark. It is on this basis that negligence suffices.

With regards to Jason, he is a professional financial underwriter who advises Mark that even though he has no much experience on financial matters, he is lately interested in matters business and has been constantly reading relevant papers to that effect. It is on this basis that he relies on Weekly Investment News, a respected financial paper, that has predicted that Global Bubble Company is poised to declare record profits to literally convince Mark to subscribe to the shares of the company and being the friends, they are, Mark thinks no otherwise. The rule here is simple. A professional should act with care and skills expected of one in that profession and in most circumstances, the test surpasses that of a reasonable man. If it is established that one acted in accordance with the required standard, then the claim must fail at worst and the issue of contributory negligence can be invoked at best. The claims against Jason may not succeed based on this analysis since and despite him being a professional, it is apparent on the face of the facts that he acted reasonably by first, being honest about his experience and second, relying on the newspaper to give a go ahead like any other professional in his capacity would have done. By giving Mark the nod to proceed and invest, his extent of liability can be established on a balance of probabilities (Schwartz and Rowe, 2010)

On the Weekly Investment News, this paper is described as a respected financial paper. This description befits a paper with legendary repute in matters finance. Its prediction on Global Bubble Company to the effect that the said company was poised to declare record profits is sufficient cause to convince and woe any reasonable person to invest in the company. Ostensibly, there is a duty of care owed to any reader or beneficiary of the paper and any omission not verified by itself and which omission influences its readers to incur loses is sufficient breach of duty provided that there is causal connection like in the instant matter (Zipursky, 2009). As such and as a result of its negligent reporting, Jason relied on its prediction to convince Mark to purchase shares in Global Bubble thereby occasioning the subject damage. The Weekly Investment News is thus liable in negligence for the damage.

Conclusion and Recommendations

From the foregoing, Mark has two potential defendants from whom he can lay claims for legal redress to recover his loses. First is against Sion for professional negligence and against Weekly Investment News again for misleading its readers in an overt act of negligence. He also has a claim on a balance of probabilities against the third defendant, Jason, with whom liability is not apparent on the face of it like the rest for the reason that he clearly acted like the professional that he is. It is thus recommended that Mark should mount an impeccable recovery journey in negligence against all these defendants with a high likelihood of success.

References

Abraham, K.S., 2011. Strict Liability in Negligence. DePaul L. Rev., 61, p.271.

Herron, D.J., Powell, L. and Silvaggio, E.L., 2016. The Evolution of Foreseeability in The Common Law of Tort. Ne. J. Legal Stud., 35, p.1.

Laleng, P., 2011. Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd and Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: A Material Contribution to Uncertainty? The Modern Law Review, 74(5), pp.777-793.

Luntz, H., Hambly, D., Burns, K., Dietrich, J., Foster, N., Grant, G. and Harder, S., 2017. Torts: cases and commentary. LexisNexis Butterworths.

Schwartz, V.E. and Rowe, E.F., 2010. Comparative negligence. LexisNexis.

Steele, J., 2010. Tort Law: Text, cases, and materials. Oxford University Press.

Zipursky, B.C., 2009. Foreseeability in Breach, Duty, and Proximate Cause. Wake Forest L. Rev., 44, p.1247.