Reference no: EM132313568

Please note that the scenario in this question follows on from the scenario covered in the past exam question addressed in our week 9 tutorials.

You do not need to refer back to that question to answer this week's question, though you might like to revisit the question for a reminder of the overall context.

All About Animals is expanding, and is considering opening a new store on the other side of Melbourne. It hires Paige, a business analyst, to provide a report assessing the proposed new store's feasibility. It is important for All About Animals that the new store is profitable, as losses will affect its ability to re-home abandoned pets (and therefore to achieve the business' core purpose). Paige analyses the business processes of All About Animals, the demographics of its customer base, its advertising strategy, and the location of the proposed new store. Paige's written report recommends going ahead with the new store, and All About Animals opens the store in October 2017.

When preparing her report, Paige was unaware that the local council had just approved a massive long-term construction project on the property next door. Noise from the demolition and construction work seriously impacts upon the new store - so much so, that customer numbers are very low, and significant losses are incurred. The construction project would have been discovered if Paige had made enquiries with the local council. Paige has told All About Animals that it is standard practice for business analysts not to make these kinds of enquiries with local councils, unless clients specifically request them to do so.

(b) Does Paige owe a duty of care to All About Animals, in relation to the provision of her advice? If Paige does owe a duty of care, and breaches that duty, can she rely on the peer professional opinion defence?