Doiron v. Devon Capital Corp. The plaintiffs wanted some short-term investments

Question

Doiron v. Devon Capital Corp. The plaintiffs wanted some short-term investments and turned to Jake, who had looked after their pension fund and insurance matters as a representative of Manulife. He persuaded them to invest in Devon Inc., calling the corporation "a no-risk investment." This proved to be bad advice and the plaintiffs lost all of their funds. from Jake, who had become bankrupt. The plaintiffs They unsuccessfully sought com then wanted compensation from Manulife. It was clear that the plaintiffs thought Jake was an employee of Manulife and that the Devon investment was one of Manulife's products, which it was not. Question: Indicate the arguments that could be raised by both parties and the likely outcome. Would it make any difference to your answer to know that even though Jake was required to work for Manulife exclusively, Manulife had taken pains to set out in their contract that Jake was not an employee, but was an independent contractor? What if you were told that Jake offices were located in the Manulife Building, that his calls were directed through the Manulife operator, and that when asked he was encouraged to present himself as a Manulife representative? Case Format. Caption: Plaintiff v Defendant . Cause of Action: Legal Issues and Rules: This is where the case is built. The more legal issues you can add the better. Build a case for both the plaintiff and defendant if possible.. Plaintiff perspective: Defendant perspective: Ruling and Reason: The defendant is laible/not liable because

Explanation / Answer

Caption: Doiron v Devon Capital Corp.

Cause of Action: The plaintiff had invested their proceeds in Devon Inc, on recommendation of Jake, who had suggested that it was a no risk investment. The share prices crashed and the plaintiffs lost all their money. So, they sued Jake as it was on his advice that they had invested in this company.

Legal Issues and Rules:

This refers to the contract liability in agency law. The principal (the plaintiff) is liable for any tort committed by the agent (Jack as a representative of Manulife) while the agent is acting within the scope of his authority. Also the principal is indirectly responsible for the agent’s actions as long as the agent is acting within express, implied or apparent terms of contract. Also an agency relationship ceases to exist incase of bankruptcy of either parties.

Ruling and Reason: The plaintiff is equally liable in this case owing to the laws under the agency agreement.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.