Polly graduated from law studies at university in Perth two years ago. Since commencing employment with a solicitor's office in London, she has steadily saved for a lump sum and now she wishes to invest. She returned to Perth two months ago for a famiiy holiday and met with Theo, a- licensed financial advisor at Theo's office in the.city. Theo investigates 'Poliy's financial position and gives personal financial advice to Polly, advising that she invest in a project with Landflev Ltd»; an established development company. Polly invests $100, 000 based on Th-eo's advice. The project that Theo advised Polly to invest in was in relation to WM constructing billions of dollars' worth of infrastructure for a new oil and gas joint venture in the NorthWest of Western Australia: lam had received interim contract approval six months ago from the State Government subject to specific conditions which needed to be met 'within 3 months. mm did not meet these conditions and. the State Government did not give final approval to the contract. The State Government announced at the time, that final approval had not been given to LandDev and in fact, that a new tender process had gone out for construction bids. LandDey Ltd is declared insolvent and: the appointed liquidator has advised Pollyr that there is no prospect of her investment being returned. Polly is furious with Theo and tells him she will; see him for his poor advice. Using the lRAC method, explain: 

a) Whether Theo owes Polly a common law duty of care under the tort of negligence. 

b) How your answer would change if Polly and Theo were friends from university days and matter lunch. While having lunch, they shared a bottle of wine, caught up on all the gossip and discussed- Polly investing her savings. (Note: you are not being asked if any duty of care has been breached].