Issue:
Zain and Gary met in a tram and use to travel together for many years and therefore become good friends as. Gary who is a barista has recently inherited $60000 from his grandmother and has no sense where he should invest his money so Gary took advice from Zain (who is an accountant and a good friend of Gary) whether he should invest his inheritance in widget Ltd so Zain told Gary that according to him Widget is a good investment. Gary then invest his $60000 in the company however in a week, Widget Ltd went into liquidation and Gary losses all of his inheritance. Gary found that when he purchased the shares, the financial position of the company was not so good which was known by many accountants. As Widget Ltd was in trouble has …show more content…
Rules:
Tort law can be defined as civil wrong means, a wrong dedicated against specific person moralities. This can be against the person property & the status. The tort law can recognise by negligence, nuisance and the international torts of trespass and defamation, which includes in common law. Negligence is the most important element for the business law.
The basis of the tort law is the fact that in order for a claim to be a successful one, the claimant will need to show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant that this duty of care was breached and that such breach of duty caused the claimant a loss or damage. These elements are essential in establishing liability in the present case.
Duty of care requires the claimant to be able to show that he was owed duty of care by the defendant. Most of the known duties of care have already been recognised by the courts, and are known as established duties of care
MLC v EVATT …show more content…
As Gary invested the money in that company and the company went into liquidation. So in both cases MLC v EVATT and SHADDOCK case the situation were same because in MLC v EVATT there were a person named Evatt took advised from the insurance company and he increased his money in HG palmer ltd but the company was badly run and went into liquidation. And in the Shaddock case , Shaddock & Associates wanted to buy the property in Parramatta so they asked the local council and the council advised that the land was not required for potential road widening and the council didn’t charge the money. Shaddock purchased the property and suffered from the losses. Shaddock sued the local
Zain and Gary met in a tram and use to travel together for many years and therefore become good friends as. Gary who is a barista has recently inherited $60000 from his grandmother and has no sense where he should invest his money so Gary took advice from Zain (who is an accountant and a good friend of Gary) whether he should invest his inheritance in widget Ltd so Zain told Gary that according to him Widget is a good investment. Gary then invest his $60000 in the company however in a week, Widget Ltd went into liquidation and Gary losses all of his inheritance. Gary found that when he purchased the shares, the financial position of the company was not so good which was known by many accountants. As Widget Ltd was in trouble has …show more content…
Rules:
Tort law can be defined as civil wrong means, a wrong dedicated against specific person moralities. This can be against the person property & the status. The tort law can recognise by negligence, nuisance and the international torts of trespass and defamation, which includes in common law. Negligence is the most important element for the business law.
The basis of the tort law is the fact that in order for a claim to be a successful one, the claimant will need to show that the defendant owed a duty of care to the claimant that this duty of care was breached and that such breach of duty caused the claimant a loss or damage. These elements are essential in establishing liability in the present case.
Duty of care requires the claimant to be able to show that he was owed duty of care by the defendant. Most of the known duties of care have already been recognised by the courts, and are known as established duties of care
MLC v EVATT …show more content…
As Gary invested the money in that company and the company went into liquidation. So in both cases MLC v EVATT and SHADDOCK case the situation were same because in MLC v EVATT there were a person named Evatt took advised from the insurance company and he increased his money in HG palmer ltd but the company was badly run and went into liquidation. And in the Shaddock case , Shaddock & Associates wanted to buy the property in Parramatta so they asked the local council and the council advised that the land was not required for potential road widening and the council didn’t charge the money. Shaddock purchased the property and suffered from the losses. Shaddock sued the local