- 16 -
524, 565 (1988). Petitioners' reliance on the advice of Mr.
Sheets was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Outside of Mr. Hulse and Mr. Sheets, petitioners made no
other inquiry into the viability of this partnership's proposed
research and operations. The Court finds it notable that the
offering listed at least 15 "potential uses of jojoba nuts"; yet,
petitioners failed to explore the plausibility of any of those
potential uses. Some of the potential uses listed in the
offering were various lubricants for high-speed or high-
temperature machinery, cosmetics, shampoos and soaps, sunscreens,
pharmaceuticals, cooking oils, disinfectants, polishing waxes,
corrosion inhibitors, candles, animal feed supplements, and
fertilizer. Being a physician, it seems logical that petitioner
would have had some access to information about the use of jojoba
in the pharmaceutical arena; however, petitioner failed to pursue
this possibility. Petitioners' failure to investigate
independently any of the enumerated potential uses of jojoba
plants was unreasonable under the circumstances.
Petitioners had no legal or agricultural background or
training; yet, they consulted no source of such information prior
to investing more than $60,000 in Blythe II. Petitioners argue
that they didn't know where or how to find an appropriate expert
to examine the investment. On the contrary, the Court believes
that, at a minimum, petitioners could have contacted an attorney
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011