Considering the first action, Thurman approached his classmate’sfather and sought professional opinion on whether he should investhis cash and get rewarding returns on his cash. By doing so, hefailed to risk his cash in any venture that was available, giving theresponsibility to seek the best place for investing his money toprofessional. Considering that his classmate’s father gave whatseemed like an informed opinion on where the money should beinvested, and that he went ahead to asking for the money through acheque for the money, the classmate’s father was directlyresponsible for Thurman’s money. Given the circumstances in thecase, it was expected that the financial planner had conducted abackground cheque on the fund where Thurman’s money was to beinvested, or he had done business with the fund in the past andobtained good returns on his investment (Albrecht88).
On the same note, having the credit of a financial planner, theindividual was expected to perform a projection of the possiblesuccess of the fund and the possibilities of the fund suffering frommarket forces. Having not done so, Thurman has the right to sue thefinancial planner and demand to be compensated for his lost money.Similarly, the same cause of action could be extended to theinvestment institution for fraud. Having the knowledge that theirfirm is not making promising progress in the business, it isunethical for the management for not informing their customers inadvance to ensure that the customers are aware of what they aregetting into. An argument can arise that Thurman had equalresponsibilities of doing a background check of the institution wherehis money was being invested (Albrecht88). Fully entrusting a stranger with such vitaldecisions was somehow naïve. Such a counter argument can weaken thepossibilities of Thurman running a successful law suit against boththe financial planner and the investment firm. However, the contractthat was signed did not only abide Thurman to hold his side of thebargain, but also the firm to deliver the promises made, whichentails a 15% returns on the invested amount.
Receiving education at a place of choice is a fundamental entitlementthat should be granted to all interested parties. No person should beforced to take a course or language that they are not conversantwith. Jack and Thurman can argue a case that Jack was beingunreasonably denied a chance to study in a French class, despite thefact that he was francophone (Fredman124). Further, being offered the option of taking anEnglish class proves that the individual was being given impossiblechoices for him to quit pursuing the chance of being admitted to aschool within his new area after relocating. In fact, Jack andThurman can argue a case that Jack was being discriminated on thegrounds of his education, career or language orientation.
However, the board can come up with a counter argument that theFrench school had exhausted its vacancies for an extra student, andthis would weaken the facts of the case. Such an argument can holdwater in the event that it can be proved that the institution wouldsuffer significantly by enrolling Jack. On the contrary, there mightbe a serious problem as no reputable organization can suffer fromadding a single student in one of their classes, even if it meantstretching their resources to the limits (Fredman167). The moral and legal ground for the case is thatthe board of the school should be accommodative of students and theyshould support all students in their education pursuits.
Albrecht, WS. FraudExamination.Mason, OH: South Western, Cengage Learning, 2012. Print.
Fredman,Sandra. DiscriminationLaw.Oxford [etc.: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print.