FACTS

Bob was at a BBQ hosted by Sarah. During the course of the evening Bob was chatting with a family friend called Sylvia. He knew Sylvia had recently inherited a large sum of money from her parents and being a retired financial advisor Bob thought it would be worthwhile to have a chat with Sylvia about the plans she had for investing her inheritance.

Bob told Sylvia that he could not give her financial advice because he was retired and although he did private consults, she would need to make a formal appointment at his office which was currently closed due to Covid related lockdowns.

Sylvia said that she was concerned about where to invest her funds. Bob said he could help but 'only as a friend'.

He suggested that she invest 50 per cent of the inheritance in a property development scheme his friend Joe was organized with. He promised Sylvia that she would get special treatment and Joe would waive the 'establishment fee' for new investors. It turned out unbeknown to Sylvia that Bob received a commission of 3 per cent of Syliva's total investment from Joe.

Bob suggested that Sylvia invest the remaining 50 per cent of her inheritance in Bitcoin as this was a 'sure fire' way to ride the trend and increase her wealth due to the boom in digital currencies.

Sylvia said she was unsure how to invest in Bitcoin but Bob spent the rest of the evening at the BBQ explaining it to her. At the end of the evening Sylvia said she felt like she knew what she was doing thanks to the expert help Bob had given her. Bob felt happy he could help and called it a 'win win'.

Due to the impact of the covid 19 pandemic many investment classes and the economy crashed. In less than 12 months Sylvia's investment in the Bitcoin was worthless and her account had been hacked. The property development scheme with Joe went bankrupt.

Sylvia now wants to sue Bob for negligent misrepresentation. Do not discuss the ACL or breach of contract or other causes of action. You must focus on only Sylvia's possible claim in negligent misrepresentation.

MY QUESTION: could it be said that sylvia was not entirely vulnerable in avoiding economic loss? could she have taken independant steps to protect herself from economic loss?

as he did say he was giving advice as a friend only not professional, or because he was qualified in this field specifically it doesnt matter what disclaimer he says verbally?

because obviously if it wasnt at a barbeque but at his office she wouldnt have been able to foresee economic loss unless she signed a waver that outlined the risks?