Other
Legal Memo
- Course
- Institution
Legal memo example
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
ayomideadekogba
Content preview
Legal Memorandum: Gross vs. Great-West Life Assurance Co.On October 18, 1991, the Plaintiffs met with Mr. Nickerson at The Great-West Life
Office in Winnipeg and discussed the possibility of expanding the number of their clinics. Dr.
Nickerson advised Dr. Gross – one of the Plaintiffs – to open up a clinic in Toronto, stating that
"Great-West Life would have no problem filling a clinic." After hearing Dr. Nickerson's claims,
Dr. Gross and his partner decided it would be in their best interest to open a clinic in Toronto
instead of Vancouver – where they had previously agreed – since Nickerson would be providing
substantial referrals. The Edmonton C.A.R.E Clinic, the Plaintiff's own, was doing exceedingly
well due to receiving ample referrals, so Gross expected a similar pattern to emerge with the
C.A.R.E Clinic in Toronto. Gross' decision to follow Nickerson’s guidance and encouragement
was justified since Nickerson was the person in charge of making financial decisions. A letter
signed on January 23, 1992, clearly indicated that Great-West Life intended to contribute
substantial referrals to the clinic, furthering Gross' decision. Before the incident, Dr. Gross and
Great-West Life had a significant history. Gross had been a medical consultant for Nickerson's
disability program. Both parties had also collaborated on a book, and Gross had worked closely
with Great-West Life employees in rehabilitation medicine. This history made it reasonable for
Dr. Gross to rely and believe the commitment made by Great-West Life. Gross and his staff were
not the only individuals affected by Great-West Life's claims. Dr. Van Schoor and Dr. Gross
discussed the possibility of him becoming the Medical Director of the Toronto clinic, so it was
crucial for Dr. Van Schoor to attend the meeting of the partnership on November 9, 1991, to
discuss the plan. Gross had made it clear to Nickerson that they needed the referrals before the
clinic's opening. When no referrals came from Great-West Life, Dr. Gross, Dr. Van Schoor and
, all of the staff worked on marketing and promoting the clinic to potential clients. After these
events, it was clear that Great-West Life did nothing to provide the referrals until Nickerson
received the letter from Gross, dated September 8, 1992. At which time, he finally took action to
make referrals to the clinic. Nickerson's actions indicate that he had the power to direct referrals
to the Toronto clinic, which he did not exercise until it was too late. Though there had been a
professional relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, where they provided one
another with excellent and reliable service, the Defendant argued that it was merely just a
business relationship where each party conducted itself according to their own needs and
interests.
Furthermore, since Great-West Life claimed they did not know that the Plaintiffs took
action to start a C.A.R.E Clinic in Ontario, no duty of care could arise. From the evidence
presented, it was clear that Dr. Gross had been seeking business from Great-West Life
throughout their association. It was inherent in his attendance at the office in Winnipeg where he
was requesting Great-West Life to send more patients to the clinic in Edmonton. It was also not
unnatural to expect him to respond positively to a proposal that if he opened the clinic, Great-
West Life would be able to fill that clinic or send substantial referrals to the clinic. This
statement was a blatant hyperbole, but there was ample opportunity to correct any
misinterpretation, but Nickerson failed to do so. This misinterpretation resulted in thousands of
dollars’ worth of damages and losses for the clinic. However, in the end, the Plaintiffs received
monetary compensation as a result of this misrepresentation.
The judge's decision to grant the Plaintiffs monetary compensation is appropriate because
the Plaintiff’s successfully met the five requirements required when filing a claim for negligent
misrepresentation. A requirement met by the plaintiffs was that there must be a duty of care
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ayomideadekogba. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
67474 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now