Agency & Partnership

Question 1

Agent can be considered as a person who can act on behalf of or in place of another person on the basis of the authority given to agent from another person. The person who extends authority to the agent is known as principal. According to the explanation of Kleinberger most of the times agents and servants form a contract of employment with whom they perform task (Kleinberger, 45). There is some legislation related to labor law that has penalties if both parties do not fulfill the duties according to the provision of law. If we take into consideration criminal liability, it would be revealed to us that in a business scenario, not all employees can have the right to act as an agent or servant. There are only few employees who can perform the role of agent or servant on behalf of the employer. Such scant employees possess the knowledge about the legislations of labor law. These employees undertake all the tasks according to the provisions of the law. They make sure that they would not undertake any activity that can be considered as the breach of the law (Kleinberger, 16).

Question 2

During the seventeenth century, the law related to respondeat superior was established in England. This doctrine of law describes liabilities of an employer for different actions of employees. This doctrine of law was embraced by United States of America and has been a fixture in the law of agency. According to the doctrine of respondeat superior, if an employee is working within the framework of his employment and has caused certain injuries then the employer is responsible for such injuries. The main idea behind the theory of respondeat superior is that as the principal possess the authority and gives direction as to what to do and how to do then the principal should assume and accept responsibility for the actions of the agent as they control the behavior and working pattern of the agent (Davant, 554). As the employer has the right to control the time, place and methods in which employee perform tasks they should be held responsible for injuries. When the facts show that employer-employee (principal-agent) relationship exists, the employers can be held responsible for injuries caused by the employee in the course of employment.

The question whether an employee was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the event depends on the particular facts of the case. The court may consider the job description or assigned duties of the employees, time, place and purpose of the act of employees, the extent to which the actions of the employees confirmed to what he had been hired to do, and whether such a event could have accept in a sensible way (Owen, 79).

Question 3

Agents and servants can be differentiated in a number of ways. A principal has the right to direct what the agent has to do. A master has not only that right but also the right to say how it is to ...