Essays --

some lawsuits to go forward against the presidency is limited for insurance reasons. This is because these suits may hold the authorities responsible for in like manner many misfortunes, or prevent the government of agency from engaging in certain duties without the threat of exorbitant financial responsibility. The second prong of the Anns test gum olibanum prevents the government from becoming an insurer of all potential harm which the government is found to have a proximate relationship to.The test passel forth in Anns is important to understand when discussing Cooper v. Hobart, which was adopted as the test for the certificate of indebtedness of c are for the government and its agencies after Kamloops v. Nielson. This is because Cooper v. Hobart is the role which is said to have re delimitate Anns into the authentic standard, the Cooper-Anns test.Facts of Cooper v. HobartCooper v. Hobart is a oddball involving the recorder of Mortgage Brokers, a statutory regulator o f owe licenses. In the case, Eron Mortgage Corporation was a mortgage broker as defined by the Mortgage Brokers Act. Eron acted as a mortgage broker for large syndicated loans. It arranged for numerous lenders (or investors) to pool their funds for the endeavor of making a single loan to a borrower, which was typically a developer of commercial real estate. The syndicated loans were made in the name of Eron or atomic number 53 of its related companies, which held the security in a trust for the investors. Cooper, an investor, had advanced silver to Eron. Hobart, in his official capacity as Mortgage Broker Registrar, hang Erons mortgage brokers license in October of 1997 because Eron was allegedly using the funds of their investors for unauthorized purposes. Shortly after the suspension of its license, Eron we... ...tending the current duty of care to a new duty of care, there were insurance reason to find that there was not a proximate adequacy relationship between Coop er and the Registrar to establish a duty of care. The Registrars duties under the statute did not give mount to a duty of care to the plaintiff. However, as the new Cooper-Anns test includes the considerations of policy at both stages of the analysis, one can assume that if policy reasons are in favor of recognizing a new duty of care, the court will, in fact, recognize it. There is a question of whether the court should have accepted a new duty of care in Cooper v. Hobart. In the Hobart case, the statute did not establish a duty of care to the plaintiffs/investors. Furthermore, the Registrar owes a duty to act in the interest of the public at large which may at time have competing interests with investors.