Case Study: Elwood Wayman vs. M.B. Aye

Business 2390 – Business Law

Instructor Ronald Morrison

Assignment #1

September 27, 2004

Written by: Michelle Russell

Case Study: Elwood Wayman vs. M.B. Aye

Parties involved:

There are 2 parties involved in the case. The first is the plaintiff who is M.B. Aye. He is the plaintiff because he is the person who brings a legal action. The defendant is Elwood Wayman. He is the defendant because he is the person required to make answer in the suit from M.B. Aye.

Plaintiff’s Claim:

The plaintiff is claiming damages against the defendant. There are 2 non-intentional torts that the plaintiff can use.

Negligence: The plaintiff must prove 4 elements to be successful at proving negligence.

The first is duty of care. In this element M.B. Aye must prove that he was foreseeable as a plaintiff. The advice was given to M.B. Aye from Elwood Wayman and the advice was then used by M.B Aye. The answer is yes the plaintiff was foreseeable.

The second is standard of care. In this element you have to ask yourself, “What would a reasonable person have done?” In a perfect world where people don’t make really bad mistakes would the advice still have been taken and used. The answer to this is yes. The plaintiff received very promising advice about an investment from Elwood Wayman who is an investment counsel. Mr. Wayman gives advice for a living and he stated to Mr. Aye that, “Yes, I still think that it’s an excellent buy. No doubt you’ll double your money in three months.” After getting such good advice and a guarantee that he would double his double his money, he invested. Any reasonable person would have done the exact same.

The third element is causation. This element states that damage must be caused as a direct result of the careless conduct. Mr. Aye has to prove that the loss of his business was a direct result of Mr. Wayman. This can be proven because had Mr. Aye not listened to the...