An act is not "within the scope of employment" if it is expressly forbidden, even if it is of the same general nature as an authorized act.
An agent is always liable for his or her own torts committed within the scope of the agency relationship.
As a general rule, an agent is liable on contracts entered into on behalf of a fully disclosed principal.
Chance is a traveling marketing representative for a publishing company. He is an independent contractor. One afternoon while driving to a meeting, he negligently runs a stop sign and causes an accident. Judy is injured. Judy can:
hold Chance but not the company liable.
Circus Pizza contracted with Art to run its birthday parties. Art's responsibilities included supervising the children and organizing the games. Circus did not investigate Art's background, which included a history of assaulting children. Art assaulted a 7-year-old girl in the restaurant's kitchen during a birthday party. Circus Pizza:
may be held liable on the basis of negligent hiring.
Erica's supervisor told her to arrange for a conference room at the Kelly Inn. Erica has express authority to contract for the room.
Factors influencing whether a servant is acting within the scope of employment include all but which of the following?
All of the answer choices are factors in determining if an act is "within the scope of employment."
If ambiguity is present as to the principal's intent, the court will look to the principal's subjective intent.
If an employer and employee are jointly and severally liable, the third party:
can collect the full award from either the employee or employer.
If apparent authority is present, the principal is liable for even the unauthorized acts of the agent.
If a principal accepts the benefits of a whole unauthorized contract, the principal is deemed to have ratified the contract and is bound as if the act had been originally authorized.
If Denise is hired to work as a cashier, she has the implied authority to do acts reasonably necessary to carry out her job.
If estoppel applies, the principal would be prevented from asserting that no agency relationship existed.
If someone acts without authority, a "principal" can decide later to be bound by the actions as long as the "agent" indicates to the third party that he is acting for a principal, the "principal" knows all the material facts of the transaction, and the "principal" accepts the benefit of at least part of the transaction.
If Zebra Toy Company purchases the equipment:
it will be doing what it had to do, since Rosa had the apparent authority to buy the equipment.
The issue in apparent authority is what the principal has done to make the third party believe that the agent actually has authority.
Jackie is an employee for Hardware Store, Inc. When attempting to open a can of bright orange paint, she accidentally spills paint on Maggie, a customer in the store. Maggie claims that her $800 business suit is ruined. The legal liability here can best be described as:
Both the store and Jackie are liable to Maggie.
Joan agrees to try to negotiate the purchase of an acre of land for a prospective office building on behalf of Cheryl, who does not want to be identified to the seller. Joan tells the seller, "My friend is interested in purchasing this land." If the seller contracts with Joan, Cheryl is:
an unidentified principal, and in case of a breach of contract Joan and Cheryl are jointly and severally liable.
Judy was the manager of an apartment complex. She hired Rick to mow the lawns. One afternoon while Rick is mowing the lawn, his negligence caused damage to Terri's car.
If Rick is an employee, who is liable to Terri?
The landlord and Rick.
Maylin has the authority to delegate her tasks as agent for Brian unless he has expressly restricted her from doing so.
Mike worked for Frank's Pizza as a driver. His duties consisted of making deliveries along a designated route. One day Mike decided to see his girlfriend, Jackie, who lived 50 miles out of his pizza route. While driving to his girlfriend's, Mike injured a pedestrian, Chuck. The accident was caused because of Mike's negligent operation of the delivery truck. Chuck is now suing both Mike and Frank's for personal injuries. Under the circumstances:
Frank's is probably not liable because Mike's excursion was not within the scope of his employment.
Paula appointed Al to be her agent via a contract in writing that spelled out the scope of Al's authority. The contract provided that Al was not to disclose that he was acting on behalf of Paula. In entering into a contract for Paula, Al did not disclose to the third party that he was acting as an agent. In this case, the principal was:
Renee works for a restaurant. One Saturday morning, she and several other employees participate in a "fun run" to benefit a charitable cause. She is not paid for this activity but she and her co-workers wear clothing bearing the company's name. While running through a street, Renee accidentally trips a fellow runner. The runner claims that both Renee and her company are liable for his injuries. Most likely:
the court would consider whether Renee was acting within the scope of her employment during the fun run.
Rosa was authorized to purchase computer equipment for her company, Zebra Toy Company. Her employer required her to obtain written approval from the vice president if she wanted to buy more than $100,000 of equipment. One day Rosa purchased $225,000 of computer equipment from Computer Sales Company, without written approval.
Zebra Toy must honor the contract if Computer Sales reasonably believed Rosa had the authority to purchase the equipment.
Thomas, the manager of an apartment complex, rented an apartment to Donna. A few weeks later, Donna complained that the hot water did not work. Thomas hired Hometown Plumbers to fix the hot water, but the job was not successful. A few days later Donna moved out since she had no hot water. She sued the landlord and Thomas for breach of contract.
The landlord is liable, but not Thomas.
When a principal is partially disclosed:
the agent and principal will be jointly and severally liable on the contract.
Which of the following statements is correct?
An employer is liable for the intentional misconduct of his employee if that employee was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to serve the employer.
While at work one evening, Joe was confronted by Tim. Tim had come into the store and accused Joe of trying to steal his girlfriend. Joe told Tim he was crazy but Tim persisted in yelling at Joe. Joe, now angered, stepped around the cash register and hit Tim in the jaw. Tim was seriously injured and sued Joe and his employer for his damages.
Joe, but not his employer, is probably liable to Tim.