WOLF V. FORD 644 A.2d 522 (1994) CASE BRIEF

WOLF V. FORD

644 A.2d 522 (1994)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Wolf (P) appealed a grant of summary judgment to Ford (D) based on a contractual exculpatory clause that limited liability to losses resulting from gross negligence or willful misconduct and that the P had established neither.

FACTS: In April, 1986, the eighteen-year-old P received $145,700 in settlement of a lawsuit she had filed to recover damages for injuries arising out of a 1983 automobile accident. P and her mother visited the home of the Ford (D), who at the time was employed as a stockbroker at the investment firm of Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc. (D). The purpose of the meeting was to discuss P's options for investing the money she had received from the settlement. At the meeting, P told D that her goals were to get a college education and to preserve the bulk of her money. D sent P letter stating that included a Discretionary Account Agreement. This gave D authorized to buy, sell and generally trade in securities, on margin, in cash or otherwise in accordance with your terms and conditions for the account and risk. The agreement exonerated D from any and all liability for losses which may occur while you are acting on my behalf except for such as may result from your gross negligence or willful misconduct.' P signed the agreement. A year later D sent another confirmation letter that if P did not sign it the discretionary account would be terminated. P signed the letter. P terminated the discretionary authorization a few years later. During the time her account was handled by P, she withdrew a total of $ 64,650.00 from her account. Each withdrawal required the prompt sale of one or more of the stocks from her portfolio. P sued Ds. The trial judge ruled that the exculpatory clause contained in the Discretionary Account Agreement limited Ds' potential liability to those losses resulting from gross negligence or intentional misconduct. He further ruled that there was no evidence of either gross negligence or wilful misconduct on the part of Ds and entered judgment in their favor. P appealed. P argues that the exculpatory clause contained in the Discretionary Account Agreement is void as against public policy

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner