3.7.4 Own fault or contributory negligence

With respect to the second claim, that the investor would not have acquired the securities if he had known that the prospectus was misleading, the defendant can theoretically make use of the `own fault' doctrine or contributory negligence. The defendant has to make a motivated claim that certain circumstances contributing to the losses are attributable to the claimant.1 It is due to his own fault that the individual with his specific knowledge and/or experience wrongly interpreted the information contained in the prospectus. However, this defence will not easily be recognised in court with respect to securities issued on a regulated market.2 With respect to the first claim where the investor bases his claim on the fact that as a result of the misleading prospectus he acquired the securities at a price that is too high, it is improbable that the defendant can rely on this doctrine because the claimant does not claim that he read the prospectus. The claim is that he relied on the correct price formation in the market. In this thesis, the claimant's duty to limit the losses is not dealt with.