Mr. and Mrs. Jacobsen went to their financial advisor, Mel, to discuss retirement options. They were concerned about Mr. Jacobsen's poor health. In fact, they knew but did not say that Mr. Jacobsen was seriously ill. They asked Mel what would be the best thing for them to do with Mr. Jacobsen's pension. Mel advised them to maximize the payments by Mrs. Jacobsen waiving (giving up) her right to survivor's benefits. Unknown to the Jacobsens, Mel would get a commission each time the pension plan was amended by changes such as waivers of survivor waivers. Mrs. Jacobsen signed the waiver trusting the advice of Mel. A few months later Mr. Jacobsen died and now Mrs. Jacobsen has no survivor benefits. Which one of the following is the likely legal outcome?

a.If Mrs. Jacobsen cannot provenon est factum, she may be able to have the court declare the waiver voidable if she can prove Mel's misrepresentation.

b.Mrs. Jacobsen should have sought independent legal advice before signing the waiver and her failure to do so means she has no remedy.

c.Mel has no duty of care in this situation, and therefore is not liable for anything.

d.Mrs. Jacobsen only has to provenon est factumfor the waiver to be voidable

e.If Mrs. Jacobsen provesnon est factum, the waiver is illegal.