The plaintiffs wanted some short-term investments and turned to Mr. Demmers, who had looked after their pension fund and insurance matters as a representative of Manulife. He persuaded them to invest in Devon, calling the corporation "a no-risk investment." This proved to be bad advice and the plaintiffs lost all of their funds. They unsuccessfully sought compensation from Demmers, who had become bankrupt. In this action the plaintiffs sought compensation from Manulife. It was clear that the plaintiffs thought Demmers was an employee of Manulife and that the Devon investment was one of Manulife's products, which it was not.

A)What arguments could be raised by both parties and the likely outcome?

B)Would it make any difference to your answer to know that Demmers was required to work for Manulife exclusively but he in fact was working for other parties?

C)Manulife had taken pains to set out in their contract that Demmers was not an employee, but was an independent contractor how does this change potential liability

Write in this box (it will expand as you type).