Thanks TJ .... Not hard to see why so many view the legal system, lawyers & judiciary, with a not to small level of disdain
***************************************
“ [ The Court helpfully identified the investor public as a section of the public comprising large commercial entities and smaller investors reliant on advice. They were “not a naive audience”. The Court took a view of the announcements as would a “commercial audience” and found that from that perspective there was nothing misleading about the content of the announcements ] "
*****************************************
(Small Investor) "But Your Honour, they said we have legally binding contract"
(Almighty wig’d one) “you should rely more on the advice that WE! say you are reliant on"
(Small Investor) “what advice? ... I’m with E’Trade"
(Almighty wig’d one) “Well .......WE! know it’s their opinion, so WE”VE ! decided you do too .... therefor they don’t have to say its their opinion, ... you just know it is"
(Small Investor) .. but but but ..... what part of their opinion is legally binding then?
(Almighty Wig’d one) ...
“NEXT!”
Lucky for the COURT! ... that the .... COURT! found smaller investor were not naive, and took of "commercial audience” view of announcements
Just think ...... If the COURT! had of found investors naive then the COURT! , bound by duty of care, would have to do something to protect the naive punters thus leveling the playing field and in doing so help smaller investors prosper from the sharemarket and not get ripped off
makes me so glad the COURT! took the time to ... Helpfully
identify the investor public
I Must admit ...... It would be a cack to see IMO scattered through OTA’s and LOI's . ect ,,, It would add a Warm’n’Fuzzy HC feel to them
Just IMO ...
(20min delay)