Exam 38: Relationships Between Principal and Agent

The principal is allowed to compete with an agent unless the agreement specifically prohibits it.

An author's agent would be considered a "special agent."

If Alice were a partner with Dubious in the car business, describe how-if at all-- that would change the results in 1a and 2a as to who is responsible for the window washing and for Betty's injuries. b. If Dubious were liable, he would have to pay the $500. All common-law contracts, including modifications of contracts, must be supported by consideration. The contract, made by his agent, is for $500. There is no consideration being given to Windows 'R' Us in return for its agreement to accept less than the full amount owing. Dubious owes $500; he has a pre-existing obligation to pay that much. Absent consideration, you cannot demand extra to do that which you are obligated to do, and absent consideration you cannot pay less than you agreed to do (and expect to get discharged from the obligation). 2a. As to Betty's injuries: the relevant rules involve the master-servant doctrine: the employer is liable for torts committed by the employee in the scope of employment; the employee is also liable. Also the doctrine of comparative negligence: a person who contributed to her own injuries will be responsible to contribute to paying for her own injuries. Alice and Dubious are liable and Betty is also partly liable for her own injuries. Clearly Alice was negligent in bumping or crashing into Betty; if Alice was negligent, then under master-servant theories Dubious is liable, for Alice was in the scope of employment when she ran out of the store (unless taking a food break is outside the scope--it is not). However it seems that Betty was also partly to blame for the accident: she was not watching what was going on; she contributed to the loss and under comparative negligence theories bears some of the damages. 2b. As for the bicycle pump: Betty will bear the cost of replacing it. A person is liable for her own tort of destruction of another's property, but self-defense may be a good defense. Alice committed an intentional tort when she smashed the pump, and a person is usually liable for intentional torts. But self-defense is a good defense, and here Alice may take advantage of that doctrine.

Whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee is legally determined by the parties' agreement.

All employees are agents.

In the legal relationship known as "agency":

Agency law imposes both fiduciary as well as nonfiduciary duties on an agent.