will fail. Despite several cash injections from Suzie, the company inevitably fails, and Suzie loses her entire investment (approximately $10,000,000). In a further blow to Suzie, she has widely advertised her involvement in CBE and given the spectacular failure of CBE, her reputation has greatly diminished. This has affected other investment opportunities as she is now seen as someone who was 'lucky' with her initial success, rather than someone possessing genuine business expertise. This loss of reputation has caused Suzie to start taking anti-depressants, which have helped, but have also exacerbated other health issues. Suzie is angry, especially with the advice she received. She has since learned Bert does not possess the relevant certication/ education to provide investing advice of the kind he provided to her. It would seem that Bert has so far managed to avoid poor outcomes due to his connections in the industry. Aside from Bert's lack of education, the report on CBE was incomplete and did not adequately account for sales slowing down after the initial marketing campaign. However, it did mention concerns about the high operational costs of the business relative to other start-up businesses with similar revenue. Suzie skimmed over the report, but missed this warning in Bert's report as it was contained in the appendices far away from the more comprehensive business and nancial analysis. Suzie is now coming to you for advice on whether she has a claim in negligence against Be_rt. Please restrict your answer to discussion of the Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qldland the supporting common law that was discussed in the Week 5 and 6 (Torts Law Parts 1 and 2) lectures and associated workshops. ~ END OF HYPOTHETICAL FACTS ~