In Violette v. Shoup (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 611, no duty of care or liability for a lost investment was found on the part of an acquaintance who referred the plaintiff, a disappointed investor, to a financial planner who set up the risky investment. The plaintiff investor and the defendant acquaintance, an independent insurance agent, were socially acquainted and generally discussed tax shelters and financial planners. However, the defendant acquaintance did not vouch for the financial planner's expertise or competence, upon introducing her to the plaintiff, nor did he comment on the merits of the risky investment partnership until after the fact. ( Id. at p. 620.) The trial court and the reviewing court both concluded on those undisputed facts that there was no significant reliance on the acquaintance's expertise on the part of the disappointed investor in making the investment, since there were other factors that were "instrumental" and "deciding" factors in the selection of the investment. This conclusion was based in large part upon the lack of evidence that the acquaintance was in any way acting as an agent for the disappointed investor in introducing the investor to the financial planner. The court noted, "A person does not become the agent of another simply by offering help or making a suggestion. . . . 'To permit a finding of agency upon this evidence would be, in effect, to hold that one who performs a mere favor for another, without being subject to any legal duty of service and without assenting to any right of control, can be an agent. This is not the law.'" ( Id. at p. 620.)