As stated, at this stage I will examine the question of whether the plaintiff's conduct is sufficient to negate her claims that she was indeed misled or deceived as a result of the misrepresentations that were presented to her.
As first evidence of the plaintiff's awareness of the risk involved in the activity, as well as her agreement to take on this risk, the defendants point to warnings that appear in the documents that were forwarded to the plaintiff. With regard to this, there is no dispute that already in the first e-mail message sent to the plaintiff by OFM (N/1) confirming her accession, there is a warning at the bottom and accordingly:
HIGH RISK INVESTMENT WARMING: Trading Binary Options is highly speculative, carries a level of risk and may not be suitable for all investors. You may lose some or all of your invested capital. Therefore you should not speculate with capital that you cannot afford to lose. You should be aware of all risks associated with trading Binary Options.
A similar warning exists in all the documents in which the plaintiff approved financial transfers to OFM - an example of this can be found - inter alia - in Appendix 2 to the defendants' affidavit, where a warning appears as follows:
The use and interpretation of the service require financial skill and judgment. Any utili[z]ation whatsoever by Subscriber, relating to the service, as well as any decision which the users may take regarding a possible purchase or sale of shares, stock options and similar and assimilated products, are the sole responsibility and liability of the Subscriber who acknowledges and agrees to this as a condition precedent to and prior to any access to the service"
In addition to the warnings that the plaintiff was aware of, and which showed about the high risk involved in investments, as well as the need for skill in order to make these investments, the defendants refer - as a confirmation of the plaintiff's knowledge of the risk involved in investments - to the e-mail message sent by the plaintiff to Collins on April 8, 2016 (P/7) - which was quoted almost in its entirety in paragraph 40 above of the judgment. From this notice, it emerges first that the plaintiff knew that the investment involved risks and moreover, she even took upon herself the risks as well as the losses that resulted from it; second, that the plaintiff was aware that she had suffered substantial losses - i.e., she was aware of the status of her account; and third, that despite this, there is no dispute that she continued to invest.