Doiron v. Devon Capital Corp. The plaintiffs wanted some short-term investments
ID: 353194 • Letter: D
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
As we read the information brochure of the pension fund and insurance that these are the subject matter of the ups and downs of the maket which is the sensex and nifty.No person or company can tell about the gains or losses which can takes place in purchasing of these financial instruments.One must be very sure about making any kind of investment because it a matter of his/her finacial resources which he/she has earned with hardwork.
The plaintiffs took a very wrong decision by depending upon the saying of a person who is not an employee of the company and invested their money in a plan which take them to the door step of losses.
The company can clearly say that they are not responsible for the losses occured because Jake was not their employee who sold a product which takes the plaintiffs to face a huge loss.
The likely outcome is that the plaintiffs has to bear all the losses which they have received from a wrong investment.
If Jake would have been the employee then the matter would be different but if the company mantioned that he is a mere contracter then might be the plaintiffs would not have inbested in the funds suggested by Jake and could have save their money.
Many a tmes it had been noted that Insurance sompanies hire a contracter who uses there place ,there reources to derive business from the customers and gain comission from the business they had provided.This is a practice wich misleads many customers and at last have to face problems.
Every individual must be very clear before making any kind of investment.
Related Questions
drjack9650@gmail.com
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.