Principle(s):

Whether an advocate owes a duty of care to a third party while drafting land-transaction agreements?

Brief facts:

The case is in regard to a fraudulent sell of land that was executed by the Defendant law firm with the help of the 1st and 2nd defendants who then worked for the firm. The plaintiff contends the defendants were in breach of a duty they owed her when they facilitated or connives with the impersonator to defraud her, for which reason they should refund her money pay her general damages and the costs of this suit. In the Defendant’s WSD, they denied having aided or connived with any impersonator to defraud the plaintiff, nor were they negligent at all.

Holding:

The 1st defendant voluntarily assumed a duty of care to the plaintiff of proper identification of the seller knowing that she was likely to rely on his services in that regard and thus is liable to compensate the plaintiff.