Various Claimants V Institute Of The Christian Schools Case Study

Further area left unanswered by Sprod bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security was highlighted in McCracken v Melbourne Storm Rugby League Footbal Club (2005)[16]. This case stated that employer is imposed vicarious liability upon employer for animosity act or criminal act by employees. The case also stated that there must be closely connection within the authority of employees and act by which their employer was considered to be vicariously liable. This case may resolve the entire issues rise in Sprof bnf v Public Relations Oriented Security.

Title: Rose v. Council for better education. Supreme Court of Kentucky, 1989 790 S.W 2d 186.

Luthra, V. (2011). Vicarious Liability. Business dictionary. Fairfax, VA : WebFinance, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/vicarious-liability.html

Vicarious liability is a doctrine where a company is held liable for the negligent acts of the employees while the doctrine of identification supposes a situation where the crimes committed by the company can be directed towards the directors or managers of the company who are the directing mind and will of the company and can be held liable for the acts committed by a separate legal entity namely the company. In the case of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass, the Appellant was offering a discount on washing powder and this was advertised on posters displayed in stores, but the Defendant did not find the packet of washing powder at the reduced price, as advertised. The Defendant therefore filed a complaint under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 for falsely advertising the price of washing powder. In defense

Borden, Inc., 168 F.3d 308, 313 (7th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original). Hiring an employee to temporarily replace Dobosz does not demonstrate that Quaker Chemical treated other younger, similarly situation employees more favorably, nor does it establish that Quaker Chemical sought a younger employee. The evidence presented by Quaker Chemical only shows that Quaker Chemical hired a temporary employee to fulfil Dobosz’s responsibilities until Dobosz returned to work. Dobosz fails to contradict any of this evidence, nor does he establish that Quaker Chemical sought out a younger temporary employee to take his place. As a result, this Court finds that Dobosz failed to demonstrate that similarly situated employees not in his protected class were treated more

In order to explain the statement this essay will explore the background to treating companies as distinct legal entities; review certain cases trying to pierce

Equally important, vicarious liability is another notion that must be kept in mind as well. This liability exhibits that “an employer is 100% liable for an employee’s tortuous act during the course of employment.” ( Yates, Bereznicki-Korol & Clarke, 2011,p.349).

The function of the doctrine of promissory estoppel is, under our view, defensive in that it estops a promisor

Vicarious liability only takes place when a person is legally responsible of the wrongful of acts of

In history, there are many cases that get reported of young children and older adults, men and women being sexually abused. Only 13% of the cases get reported. Those people who are sexually abused suffer through so much pain. They are effected emotionally and physically. So much of their life changes and is affected. Many victims are afraid to confront about this abuse because they are ashamed. Sexual abuse can also be referred to as molestation. It is undesired sexual behavior with a person of any age, gender, and race upon another person. The person, victim, is usually forced into sexual activity. The topic of sexual abuse has numerous causes which impact the victim, his or hers family and the society in which he or she lives in; however,

Vicarious liability is used to refer to the concept that any employer is liable for the wrongs done by his or her employees in the employment period (Goodwin, 2016). An organization is known to be liable vicariously if the offense takes place during working period and if it happened when the employee was performing the duties.

I believe some people can benefit from vicarious liability because if a sales men was to sale you a car and forgot to tell you it had been wrecked, that could harm not only him but the company because of his actions but I could benefit from it by returning the car and getting my money

The case of Mckee verses Reids Heritage Homes is a good illustration on the issues related to employment law. McKee was a 64 year old sales manager in

The Issue relates to the application of the doctrine of direct effect, and possibly the application of indirect effect and state liability if require in pursuant of invoking the EU Transfer of Pensions Directive (TPD) in a UK national court (NC) in light of the UK’s national legislation which evidently fails to completely encompass the directive.

A company can be held liable if the criminal act committed was within the scope of employment and is beneficial to the firm. Employees are representatives of a firm and their actions within the scope of the firm are received as the actions of the firm. To act within the scope of employment, the employee must have the actual delegated authority to act or engage in a particular act (Lype, 2000). It is assumed an employee who has delegated authority is acting within and representing the firm. The firm can be therefore held liable for any criminal act committed by the