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: 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

Answer:

Part -1: Introduction:

It's good know about independent contractor, for better understanding.

Independent contractor is a person who represent a business of an organization. The company may provide good or services. Independent contractors will be working for the companies, under certain terms & conditions, specification in a contract.

It's important to note that, an employee can be fired by the employer whereas an independent contractor can't be fired, as long as the he/she abides to the agreed term & conditions, to the employer.

Based on the contract with the current client, an independent contractor can work for more than one client, if there's no clause. If there's a contract which allows to work only for them, he can't work for more than one client. It's legally approved.

Part -2: Arguments of both parties

It's clear from the given passage that "Jake" was a representative of "Manulife" and he isn't been mentioned as an employee of "Manulife".

Plantiffs was unaware that Jake isn't a employee of the Manulife. They misintrepreted that even Devon, Inc. is a product of Manulife.

Plantiffs contacted Jake who represents Manulife and took an advise from him, for their short term investement and vest their mony on Devon, Inc.

Eventhough Jake mentioned that it's a no risk investment, it mandatory that the documents which are needed to be contains this specific point, that investment on funds are subjected to market risk.

Although Plantiffs lost all their funds because of Jake's advise, they can't legally request or sought for compensation to Manulife.

Manulife made it clear that, Jake's is an independant contractor who represents of the organization, whereas he's not an employee of an organization.

Manulife can defends legally that, they can't provide any compensation to Plantiff, since Jake was an independant contractor, where his contract doesn't have any legal protections, that doesn't have Manulife's employees previlage . Manulife can't provide compensation for Plantiff's misinterpretation.

So, Plantiffs can only approach Jake, who had become bankrupt.

Part -3: Condition if Jake was required to work for Manulife exclusively

It possible for a employer or an organization who can request or hire an independent contractor, who can work work for them alone.

Eventhough the contract can be made in such a way that Jake can only work for Manulife exclusively. He only receives more compensation for his work. Working exclusively for "Manulife", doesn't mean that he will have a legal cover that regular employee have, he only enjoys the previlages of independent contract.

So, it won't make any difference in the situtation or case, even if "Jake" works exclusively for "Manulife".

Part -4: Manulife's Contract with Jake

Insurance companies mostly tend to have number of independent contractors. Manulife is a company, that might have no. of independent contractors.

It's to be noted that, Devon, Inc. not the product of Manulife. It's also made clear that Plantiffs thought it was a product of Manulife.

Therefore, Manulife is cannot pay a compensation for the Plantiffs misinterpretations.

The defendant Manulife, in order to set out their pain, by announcing legally, that Jake was as independent contactor who works for the organization. This show that Manulife is not responsible for Plantiffs investment.

Part -5: Condition, if Jake's offices were located in Manulife buliding and calls was forwarded by Manulife operator.

Eventhough he has an offices located in Manulife buiding, it's been made clear that Jake represents the Manulife's pension funds and insurance matters.

Having Offices in Manulife building makes it clear, he's an independent contractor, not an employee.

It's usual that operator of the company forwards the client call to the concerned person, if he/she represents the company and it's product, either as an employee or an independant contractor, who majorly or exclusively works for them.

Manulife's operator had forwarded the call under the above mentioned condition. It doesn't make any difference in the case or situtation.

Part -6: Conclusion

From all the above points, it been made clear that "Manulife" as a defendant, is not liable, for this case.

Hope all the above explantion, will recitify the raised queries.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

---

---

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