“It is now fully established that companies can be held liable for negligent and intentional crime and that liability is attributed when such errors are made by their employees and agents in the course of their employment and within their scope * * * in many cases and in reliable manuals * * * * * “Employment history” is indicated as sufficiently complete; However, whether either descriptive term is used, they shall have the same meaning for the burden on the contracting authority when the staff member is engaged in the work employed or directed by his principal and * * * in an effort to carry it out. If such conduct falls within the scope of the classification of an offence as a criminal offence, the principal of the undertaking is liable, as in other cases of the principal and the representative, not only for “the act itself, but also for the means and means used to carry it out”. Image: Personal liability of representatives entering into contracts Should a representative who exceeds his or her express authority be accountable to the client? Why or why not? Should it be held liable to the third party? Why or why not? The Client may be held liable for the unlawful acts of the Entrepreneur, but cannot be held criminally liable for the criminal acts of vicarious agents that were not initiated by the Client, except in accordance with certain legal provisions. Under the superior respondent doctrine, a client is generally liable for the actions of an employee in the employment relationship. A client is generally not liable for the actions of officers who do not serve and cause physical harm, although they are held liable for a non-physical offense, such as misrepresentation. The Customer shall not be liable for the tortious acts of independent contractors, although the Client may be liable for breaches resulting from its inaction in situations where it was not legally entitled to delegate an obligation to act. Whenever an agent acts to promote the commercial interests of the principal, the principal is liable on behalf of the agent`s intentional tortious acts. It is not easy to determine what constitutes the level of employment; The modern trend is to hold a customer accountable for an agent`s behavior when it was foreseeable that the agent would act as he did. Where a person concludes a contract as an agent, he shall not be entitled to demand performance of the contract if he has actually acted not as agent but on his own behalf. Not all the details of an agent`s work can be specified. It is impossible to define step by step the tasks of a general representative; At best, a client can only describe the general nature of the tasks that the agent is required to perform. Even the duties of a special agent are difficult to describe in such detail that he has no discretion. If express power of attorney were the only valid means, there would be no effective way to use an agent, both because the effort to describe the functions would be too great and because the third party would be reluctant to do so.
If the agent acts on behalf of an undisclosed principal: If an agent fails to disclose the name of the principal, he or she is personally liable. Even if the contractor exceeds his express authority, his implied power of attorney can bind the client to the contract and release him from any contractual liability to the third party. It is important that the representative acts on behalf of the client and discloses this relationship to the third party. It is logical for a representative to be responsible for her own offence; It would indeed be bad social policy if a person could avoid responsibility based on his own fault simply because he acted as a representative. It is also logical that, as is the general rule, an agent should not be liable for contracts he enters into on behalf of the principal; The Contractor is not a party to a contract concluded by the Contractor on behalf of the Customer. No public policy would be served by the imposition of liability, and in many cases it would make no sense. Suppose an agent buys $25 million in rolled aluminum for a customer, an aircraft manufacturer. The representative personally could not adequately perform such a contract and the parties do not intend to engage her liability. (Although the rule is different in England, where an agent who lives outside the country is responsible, even though it is clear that he signs as an agency.) However, there are three exceptions to this rule: (1) if the agent is not disclosed or is only partially disclosed, (2) if the agent has no authority or goes beyond that, or (3) if the agent entered into the contract in his personal capacity. We take into account each situation.
The client`s liability for the acts of the representative of which the client had no knowledge or intention to commit is stated. Even if the authority has been terminated by acts of the parties or by operation of law, the customer can still be held liable. The apparent authority will still exist in many cases; This is called persistent authority, which occurs when the actual authority has been terminated, but third parties are led by the client`s negligence to believe that it still exists. It is imperative that upon termination of the authority, a principal notify all those who may still be able to negotiate with the agent. The only exceptions to this requirement are if the termination occurs due to death, loss of legal capacity of the customer or an event that would make it impossible to execute the object of the transaction. If, as in [a case under consideration], the attack was not motivated or triggered by anything in the professional activity, but was only the result of obstinacy and lust, there should be no responsibility. However, if the sexual or other assault was initiated, motivated or caused by a dispute over the conduct of the employer`s business, the employer should be held liable. Unlike wives, at common law, children are not considered agents or extended members of the father, so parents are not normally held liable on behalf of their children`s torts. However, they can be held accountable if they fail to control children who are known to be dangerous. By mutual agreement between the Parties, the Agency shall terminate. In addition, the client may revoke the Agency or the authorized representative may waive it; Such revocationThe unilateral termination of the agency relationship by the client. or Agency WaiverThe unilateral termination of the Agency relationship by the Agent.
would be an explicit termination. Even a contract that states that the agreement is irrevocable is not binding, although it may be the basis for an action for damages against the person who violated the agreement by revocation or waiver. As with any contract, a person has the power to violate, even if they do not have the right to do so. However, if the Agency is linked to an interest, so that the power to act is given in order to ensure an interest that the representative has in the subject matter of the Agency, the contracting authority does not have the power to terminate the contract. The Southern District of Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit, enforcing Mississippi law, have ruled that sexual misconduct is outside the course and scope of employment. There is no doubt that Constable James was in the context of his employment when he first arrested Cockrell on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, when Constable James retired for personal reasons, he no longer acted to promote the interests of his employer. Therefore, the district cannot be held responsible.
for Constable James` misconduct that occurred outside the scope of his employment. Function insignia, e.g. office and institution, private secretary, may tend to suggest executive responsibility, but do not provide a basis for establishing apparent authority without further evidence. Apparent authority arises from a variety of circumstances. For example, in Federal Nat. Bank v. Connell. (1940), it was assumed that apparent authority could be found because an official who was a director, vice-president and treasurer was actively involved in the management of the affairs of the bank in question and was seen by third parties talking to and negotiating with customers. In Costonis v. Medford housing Authy..
(1961), the executive director of a public housing authority was given the obvious authority to modify specifications based on the cumulative effect of what he had done and what the authority seemed to allow him to do.