AA-05 Naomi Sung
.docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Kansas City Kansas Community College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
204
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by MajorApePerson568 on coursehero.com
ACTIVITY – Principal and Agent
A.Paul tells Angela, his sales agent employee, that under no circumstances does she have
authority to make any warranties covering any of the laptops she sells for Paul. He got the
laptops from a somewhat sketchy supplier and is less than confident about their durability.
Angela successfully completes the sale of a laptop to Tom for $250 by including a 5-year
warranty with the sale. Tom knows nothing about the limitation on Angela’s authority.
1.
Did Angela have implied authority to bind Paul? Explain in 1-2 sentences.
No, implied authority refers to the authority implicit in an employee's position or job
description. Angela did not have implied authority to bind Paul in this case because Paul
clearly warned her that she did not have authorization to make any warranties covering
the computers.
2.
Did Angela have apparent authority to bind Paul? Explain in 1-2 sentences.
No, Angela had no apparent authority to bind Paul. This is because Paul clearly warned
Angela that she did not have power to make any warranties covering the computers, and
Tom was unaware of this limitation on Angela's authority.
B.
Customer Tom (not paying attention) hands Angela five $100 bills, which she accepts,
instead of five $50 bills.
4.
Should Paul be liable for Angela’s mistake if it was an accident? Explain in 2-3
sentences.
Yes,
Paul may still be liable for her mistake because he is responsible for the actions of
his employees while they are acting within the scope of their employment. However, he
may be able to seek reimbursement from Angela if she is found to be at fault for the
mistake.
5.
Should Paul be liable for Angela’s mistake if it was intentional? Explain in 2-3 sentences.
Yes,
because he is responsible for the actions of his employees while they are acting
within the scope of their employment. However, he may have additional legal options to
pursue against Angela for intentional misconduct, such as filing criminal charges or
seeking damages in a civil lawsuit.
6.
Should Paul be liable for Angela’s mistake if she pocketed the money instead of putting it
in the drawer? Explain in 2-3 sentences.
Yes, because he is responsible for the actions of his employees while they are acting
within the scope of their employment. However, he may have additional legal options to
pursue against Angela for theft or embezzlement, depending on the circumstances of the
incident.
7.
Should Paul be liable for Angela’s behavior if Angela hit Tom over the head for making
rude comments? Explain in 1-2 sentences.
No, Paul should not be liable for Angela's behavior if she hits Tom over the head for
making rude comments, as this behavior is not within the scope of her employment and
goes beyond any implied or apparent authority she may have had. Additionally, such
behavior would likely be considered illegal and subject to criminal prosecution.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help