We are part of a non-profitable organization. With a team of 4 lawyer volunteering law advice and services to the community for free. In this case we are to provide Chalice with our advice on what are the chargers he can look into if he decided to take it to the court or alternatively settle by other resolution.
Duty of care with Negligence
“Negligence as an important element in law of tort requires more than mere lack of care”. A claimant who wishes to sue in negligence must show:
That the defendant owed him a legal duty to take care;
That there was a breach of this legal duty by the defendant; and
That the breach caused him recoverable damage.
Under the Tort of Negligence in Singapore law, the first element of duty of care is that defendant must have the plaintiff a duty of care, this refers to the case of “Donoghue v Stevenson” (1932) shows that manufacturers owe a duty of care in negligence to the ultimate consumers of their products but not the intermediate consumer.
Based on this case, when Charlie agreed to invest his life saving in the Ostrich Farm Unit trust, which certify that the contract was being exist between them, (refer to proximate relationship)thus, Denise act as a financial advisor own a duty care with Charlie.
Breach of duty
According to the case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks” (1856), breach the duty of care meant the “omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or doing something reasonable would not do”. Whether or not, “the pure economic losses” refer the physical injury or property damages economic loses usually easy to attest as breach of duty of care.
Denise as financial advisor did not have the professional skills to provide the legible investment suggestion to Charlie, this is failed to do what a reasonable person would have done in the situation and result in Charlie suffer the property damages. Denise advises the unclear investment products to Charlie, which breaches his professional business