That was the situation in Sheeraz v. Kayani, referred to above. The plaintiff had retained a lawyer to secure a licence agreement permitting his company to operate a business as a pub. The licence that the lawyer acquired did not permit the operation of a pub and the business failed. The motion judge found that the plaintiff knew, by May 26, 2004, that the lawyer had failed to obtain the licence. However, after discovery of the problem, the lawyer continued to act on the file and was asserting that the loss had been caused by misrepresentations of the vendor. The lawyer was attempting to negotiate a resolution to salvage the investment, and was threatening to bring an action against the vendor if the situation was not rectified. The last letter written by the lawyer on the file was addressed to the vendor and was dated June 10, 2004. The action against the lawyer was commenced two years less a day later, on June 9, 2006.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.