Wolf v. Ford
Maryland Supreme Court
644 A.2d 522 (1994)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Eighteen-year-old Elizabeth Wolf (plaintiff) approached Harry M. Ford (defendant), a stockbroker with the investment firm Legg Mason Wood Walker, Inc. (Legg) (defendant), to invest $135,000. Wolf signed a contract with Legg authorizing Ford to buy, sell, or trade in securities, giving Ford the discretionary power to do so but also expressly permitting Wolf to make such decisions, and providing that Wolf exonerated Ford and Legg from any liability for losses other than those resulting from gross negligence or willful misconduct. A year later, Legg sent Wolf a letter asking to confirm Ford’s continued discretionary authority. Wolf did so. Wolf withdrew money from her account several times, totaling $64,000. Approximately four years into the contract, Wolf was unhappy with her account performance, terminated Ford’s discretionary authority, and transferred her account to John Seifert (defendant), a different stockbroker with Legg. Less than a year later, Wolf closed her account and filed suit against Ford, Seifert, and Legg (collectively, the stockbrokers). Wolf testified that the stockbrokers never lied to her or made any misrepresentations. The trial court granted the stockbrokers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the exculpatory clause barred Wolf’s suit. Wolf appealed, arguing that the exculpatory clause violated public policy, and the Maryland Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari on its own motion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Karwacki, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.