For Your Data Sennott V. Rodman & Renshaw Instance Brief
February 16, 2016
Edit
Sennott v. Rodman & Renshaw illustration brief summary
474 F.2d 32 (1973)
CASE FACTS
Appellant was held vicariously liable for the fraudulent misrepresentations of a sometime associate as well as boy of a partner of appellant. Appellant contended that the actions of its sometime associate could non survive imputed to them because appellant had no cognition of the deception.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The judgment asset appellant vicariously liable for the damages caused yesteryear a sometime associate as well as boy of a partner of appellant involving fraudulent securities manipulations was reversed as well as the illustration remanded because the harm to appellees was a effect of their misplaced reliance on the sometime associate as well as non appellant.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations as well as Business Associations Law
474 F.2d 32 (1973)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant sought review of the judgment of the District Court, awarding appellees damages addition prejudgment interest, asset appellant vicariously liable for the damages caused yesteryear a sometime associate as well as boy of a partner of appellant inwards an activeness alleging securities violations.CASE FACTS
Appellant was held vicariously liable for the fraudulent misrepresentations of a sometime associate as well as boy of a partner of appellant. Appellant contended that the actions of its sometime associate could non survive imputed to them because appellant had no cognition of the deception.
DISCUSSION
- The courtroom agreed, asset that in that location was no prove that appellant did anything to cause appellees to discipline themselves to the sometime associate's defalcations, nor did it bring whatever cognition until afterward the fact.
- Appellees, upon recommendation of the sometime associate, refused to cooperate amongst appellant's inquiries into the fraudulent stock selection transactions.
- The harm that the sometime associate inflicted on appellees was a effect of appellees' misplaced reliance upon the sometime associate as well as non appellant.
- There was no prove supporting appellees' theory that the sometime associate's begetter had cognition of his son's scheme, which was imputed to appellant, nor their theory of apparent authority.
CONCLUSION
The judgment asset appellant vicariously liable for the damages caused yesteryear a sometime associate as well as boy of a partner of appellant involving fraudulent securities manipulations was reversed as well as the illustration remanded because the harm to appellees was a effect of their misplaced reliance on the sometime associate as well as non appellant.
Recommended Supplements for Corporations as well as Business Associations Law