Viner V. Sweet Viner V. Sweet

Viner V. Sweet

    • 0,99 €
    • 0,99 €

Publisher Description

In a client's action against an attorney for legal malpractice, the client must prove, among other things, that the attorney's negligent acts or omissions caused the client to suffer some financial harm or loss. When the alleged malpractice occurred in the performance of transactional work (giving advice or preparing documents for a business transaction), must the client prove this causation element according to the "but for" test, meaning that the harm or loss would not have occurred without the attorney's malpractice? The answer is yes. *fn1

GENRE
Professional & Technical
RELEASED
2003
23 June
LANGUAGE
EN
English
LENGTH
19
Pages
PUBLISHER
LawApp Publishers
SIZE
65.4
KB

More Books by California Supreme Court

People v. Yeoman People v. Yeoman
2003
Hameid v. National Fire Insurance of Hartford Hameid v. National Fire Insurance of Hartford
2003
In re Barnett In re Barnett
2003
Jimenez v. Superior Coourt of San Diego County Jimenez v. Superior Coourt of San Diego County
2002
In re Estate of Joseph In re Estate of Joseph
1998
In re Stephanie M. In re Stephanie M.
1994