An investment adviser negligently fails to warn a client about a fund's risks. The client invests and loses money. Evidence shows the client had already firmly decided to invest and would have done so even if properly warned. What is the most likely result?

Correct answer: C) The claim fails because the breach did not cause the loss on the 'but for' test

Explanation

Breach alone is not enough: the claimant must show that, but for the breach, the loss would not have happened (Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital). The client would have invested anyway, so the failure to warn did not cause the loss. Contributory negligence reduces damages only where liability is established. Advisers can owe a duty of care in tort as well as in contract.