This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Intentional and Negligent Misrepresentation

Amit Vaswani v. Global Financing Online LLC

Published: Jan. 26, 2013 | Result Date: Dec. 4, 2012 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: SCV 248606 Verdict –  $105,000

Court

Sonoma Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Michael A. Brewer


Defendant

Richard W. Freeman Jr.
(Law Office of Richard W. Freeman Jr.)


Facts

Plaintiff Amit Vaswani, a resident of Mumbai, India, alleged that he was misled by Defendants, with whom he had prior financial dealings, on an opportunity to raise project financing for one of his clients in Dubai.

Based on his allegations, Plaintiff sued for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, negligence, and breach of contract.

Contentions

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants asserted that they had acted as a conduit in providing information and contacts to Plaintiff in his efforts to obtain the financing, in exchange for profit sharing, if the opportunity was successful.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiff demanded $650,000 later reduced to $100,000. Defendants offered $65,000 reduced to $50,000 during trial.

Damages

Plaintiff claimed a loss of fees to set up the transaction of $400,000 and potential profit damages of $2.6 million, based on the anticipated financing.

Result

Verdict for Defendants on intentional misrepresentation and breach of contract. Verdict for Plaintiff on negligence and negligent misrepresentation with total damages on the two causes of action at $105,000 with a finding of 50 percent comparative fault, reducing judgment on verdict to $52,500. The jury found that there was no loss of any profits and that Plaintiff's only damages were his commission based on the amount he took from his client to complete the transaction. The jury also found Plaintiff 50 percent comparatively at fault for the damages.

Other Information

Motions for new trial and motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict are pending. FILING DATE: Nov. 10, 2010.

Deliberation

two days

Poll

8-0 (on all issues)

Length

12 days


#124391

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390