English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

For investors who are mis-sold financial products, contractual claims against financial advisors are often decisive in compensating losses. The European Court of Justice has decided in its Bankinter judgment that national law must determine the contractual consequences of breaches of the MiFID I (substituted by MiFID II) suitability rule. This article examines the contractual relationships between investors and financial advisors under German, Italian and English law. It highlights the significant differences between the jurisdictions in the questions of when a contractual obligation to give advice arises, which duties must be fulfilled when giving advice and the requirements for damages to be claimed.

Contractual Relationships between Investors and Financial Advisors