CASES AND ADDITIONAL READING RESOURCES FOR PROJECT 1.

Blue Mood Clothing, Inc

Notice: Contains Confidential Information

Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., a company devoted to producing positive, mood-altering apparel and various other clothing items, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Colossal Corporation. Blue Mood Clothing's most famous and best-selling product is the Breezer—a skin-tight shirt with an air ventilation system that allows the breeze to pass through the shirt. Colossal Corporation has uncovered an incident of theft at Blue Mood Clothing: approximately one month ago, over five thousand Breezers were stolen from Blue Mood Clothing's Atlantic City, New Jersey, warehouse.

Shortly after the theft was discovered, Colossal Corporation's internal investigator, Bill, found an online advertisement for the sale of exactly five thousand Breezers, described as shirts with an "air ventilation system that allows a cooling breeze to pass through the shirt." Bill called the contact on the website and set up a meeting with the seller, Nick Johnson. When Bill, under the guise of being an interested purchaser of the Breezers, inquired about Nick's distributor, Nick did not hesitate to reveal that he purchased the Breezers from Juanita Winfrey, his long-time business associate. Bill inspected the five thousand Breezers, and confirmed they were indeed the same Breezer products that were stolen from the warehouse. He then requested a price quote from Nick and asked Nick to hold the products for him for seven days. Nick agreed.

That same afternoon, before additional investigation, Bill sent an email intended solely to be sent to the vice president of Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., but he accidentally hit "reply all" to a previous message, and sent the email to every employee at Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., over two hundred people. The email stated, among other things, that "Nick Johnson was a thief and had an extensive criminal record in New Jersey. He stole the five thousand Breezers. I will continue my investigation tomorrow." This statement was not true. Nick’s old friend from high school, who worked at Blue Mood Clothing, Inc., forwarded this message to Nick, who became worried about his business and reputation.

Bill arranged a meeting with Juanita the very next day, during which he posed as an interested clothing buyer. He asked Juanita if she had any Breezer distributors she could recommend. Juanita said that she works directly with a Blue Mood Clothing sales agent named Alex Ridgefield, and that she recently purchased five thousand Breezers from him at a fair price. Juanita also said that Alex is quite interested in expanding his business with her, and would provide Bill with a great deal.

After his meeting with Juanita, Bill checked the personnel records at Blue Mood Clothing and identified Alex Ridgefield as a low-level warehouse employee who has been with the company for over 20 years. Alex's personnel record is spotless, with no prior personnel issues and no complaints. Alex is an at-will employee who is in charge of night security at the Atlantic City warehouse and has no history in sales. As a night security guard, Alex is responsible for protecting the warehouse from theft and is not permitted to sell products. After further investigation, Bill found company emails between Juanita and Alex in which Alex posed as a sales agent. Reading the emails, it became obvious that neither Juanita nor Nick knew that the five thousand Breezers were stolen, and that both bought the Breezers for fair-market value. Bill then collected video from all of Alex’s shifts and was able to locate a film of Alex packing the Breezers into his personal minivan and driving them out of the warehouse parking lot.

Your task is to research the legal issues surrounding the stolen property. It is up to you to decipher which laws have been broken and deduce any potential remedies. Vice President Dodger wants you to prepare a narrated PowerPoint to present this information to the senior leadership team. Because of the sensitive nature of this case, the vice president has asked you to operate with total confidentiality and without involving the legal department.

SECOND CASE STEP 7.

Carz Bazaar

Notice: Contains Confidential Information

Colossal Company subsidiary Carz Bazaar, a new and used car dealership, hired Charles Wilson to perform various duties, such as cleaning and gassing vehicles, moving vehicles from one lot to another, and maintaining the showroom and vehicle lots. In this position, Wilson had access to keys to the vehicles through a key-control procedure. Under this procedure, an attendant keeps the keys in a control shack. When any employee wants to move a company vehicle, the attendant inputs information into a template request form. The information includes the date, time, stock number of the vehicle, name of the employee checking out the vehicle, and the destination of the vehicle. For example, the vehicle might be taken to a body shop for repairs, to a gas station, or to a company lot at a different location. Every time an employee checks out a vehicle, the reason must be for company business use. It is not necessary to put the expected return time on the form unless a vehicle was expected to be gone for a long time. Once the attendant has completed the form, she gives the keys to the employee who has requested them. When the vehicle is returned, the attendant indicates in the log that the vehicle was returned and replaces the keys. Sometimes vehicles are gone for more than one day. Some vehicles may be removed permanently if they are sold from another lot. In these cases, the managers of the other lots call to let the attendant know that the vehicle will not be coming back. Sometimes employees drive cars back and leave the keys with other employees to return to the attendant. This practice was acceptable to the dealership.

One day when Gina Mitchell was the attendant in charge, Wilson asked her if he could use a car for 30 minutes on his lunch break to go to his mother's house. The attendant told him it was okay as long as he brought it back because, otherwise, she could get in trouble. Since Wilson only wanted the car for 30 minutes and she trusted him, she did not make any entry about this trip on the computer. Wilson took the car and left. On his way back to the dealership, Wilson rear-ended a car stopped at a stop light, causing injuries to the driver and a passenger. Wilson told a police officer at the scene of the accident that he was on a lunch break from his job and that he had permission to drive the car, but his boss was not aware he had the car.

The injured driver and passenger sued Carz Bazaar on the grounds that it was responsible for the injuries caused by Wilson.

STEP 8 ADDITIONAL READING RESOURCES.

Legal Responsibilities of Agents and Employees

Agency law is a component of civil law and deals with the legal relationship by which one person acts on behalf of another. The agent is the person who acts on behalf of the principal to do something the principal has delegated the agent to do, which the principal him or herself is legally permitted to do.

The creation of an agency relationship gives rise to both rights and duties of the agent and the principal, as well as the potential for liability to each other and to third parties. Principals may be held liable by third parties for the acts of their agents under certain, but not all, circumstances. The potential liabilities a principal has to third parties for the agent's acts often depend on whether the agent is an employee or an independent contractor. Principals face potentially more liabilities to third parties for the acts of their employees than they do for the acts of their independent contractors.

Resources

· Agency and Liability

ANOTHER READING RESOURCES.

Agency and Liability

Agency law concerns the legal relationship by which one person acts on behalf of another. This resource will examine the agency relationship and the legal duties owed by principal and agent. It will focus on the scope of the agency relationship—particularly in the context of the employer-employee relationship. It will introduce the concept of vicarious liability and provide the elements necessary for a principal to be held liable for the actions of the agent. This topic will include liability for contracts entered into by the agent and torts committed by the agent.

What Is an Agency?

An agency relationship is one in which a party acts on behalf of and with the authority of another party. The principal appoints or authorizes the agent to act on her behalf. Thus, she is responsible for the actions of the agent taken in furtherance of her duties or per the instructions of the principal. The agent will interact with third parties on behalf of the principal. The agency relationship requires an understanding of the relationship between principal and agent, agent and third parties, and the principal and third parties’ roles, responsibilities, and rights.

For example, I hire Betty to negotiate a business deal on my behalf. I am the principal and Betty is my agent for this purpose. Betty will act as my representative in dealing with the third parties to this business deal.

Transcript

Types of Agents

The principal will lay out the scope of the agency, including the responsibilities and limitations of the agent. Agents generally fall into three categories:

· limited agent—A limited agent has a special purpose and limited authority to act on behalf of the principal. Unless specifically limited by the principal, actions done in furtherance of that purpose are within the scope of the agent’s authority. For example, I hire a real estate agent to represent me in the purchase of a business. She is my limited agent for that purpose. Her authority to act on my behalf is limited to this situation.

· general agent—A general agent has broad authority to act on behalf of the principal. The scope of the agency is not limited to a special purpose. For example, Arthur is my employee. He serves as operations manager. As such, he is my general agent with regard to all aspects of operations falling under his responsibility. His authority to act as my agent is not limited to a specific task; rather, it is pursuant to his responsibilities in his position.

· independent contractor—Agency law considers an independent contractor to be a special form of agent of the principal. The independent contractor is hired to perform a service for the principal but is generally not under the direct control or supervision of the principal. In this way, the agent has very limited ability to represent or act on behalf of the principal outside of the context of the services contract.

Numerous subcategories of agent exist within these broader categories. For instance, an agent coupled with an interest is a type of special agent who earns compensation through performing her agency duties (rather than receiving compensation directly from the principal). A sales agent who receives a commission on sales may be an agent coupled with an interest. This type of agency is subject to contract rules and cannot be terminated without violating the legal rights of the agent or principal.

Other common categorizations of agents include co-agents and subagents. Co-agents are multiple agents who serve a single principal for the same purpose. Subagents are authorized agents of an agent.

Ask Yourself

· Why do you think there is a distinction between a general and limited agent? How should the authority of a limited agent be interpreted? What should be the limits placed upon the authority of the general agent?

· Erin is starting an interior design firm. She hires Ann as a senior designer, and Rachel as a design assistant. She hires Rita to handle her bookkeeping and Patricia to handle her business setup and legal matters. What is the status of each of these individuals (employee, independent contractor, general agent, or limited agent)?

Transcript

Employee vs. Independent Contractor

An employer hires an employee to work on behalf of the employer as part of or in support of the business’s core functions. The employee generally works exclusively for the business in the functions for which she is hired. The employer exercises extensive control over the nature, time, and manner of work carried out by the employee. As such, the employee is a general agent of the business to the extent of her authority in the position.

An individual working on behalf of an employer does not have to be paid to be considered an employee. An unpaid person may be a “gratuitous employee.” This may be the case when individuals are volunteering for nonprofit ventures or working as part of an internship.

For example, ABC Corp hires me as an internal accountant. I report to ABC Corp from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. five days per week. I work on any and all accounting functions assigned to me by my supervisor.

An independent contractor is not an employee; rather, she or it is a separate business that is hired to perform services for or on behalf of another person or business. One way of thinking of an independent contractor is that she has her own business that services the employer as a client or customer. The employer does not directly control the manner and method by which an independent contractor carries out her duties. Also, an independent contractor generally has more than one customer or client. As such, the independent contract is only a limited or special agent of the principal employer.

For example, I have my own professional accounting practice. I prepare the tax returns for any business or individual who pays me to do so. I do not have any employees. ABC Corp hires me to prepare its annual tax return. I promise to have the return completed within 1 month. I will invoice ABC Corp for my services. I am not an employee of ABC Corp. I am an independent contractor who is hired to perform a specific function for a limited amount of time. While I have a projected deadline, ABC Corp does not control the nature, time, and manner of the services I perform.

This distinction is important for determining a principal’s liability for the agent’s actions. Generally, absent specific instructions to do a task leading to liability, an employer is not liable for the actions of an independent contractor taken on behalf of the principal.

There are exceptions where an independent contractor may subject an employer to liability for her actions. This is the case when the work performed is inherently dangerous in nature; the tasks performed for the employer are illegal; the work is nondelegable; or the employer ratifies the contractor’s actions. A separate cause of action may exist if the employer was negligent in selecting a contractor to perform the duties. That is, she failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting a particular contractor. This may be the case where past performance demonstrated the contractor was unsuitable for the task.

Ask Yourself

· Why do you think employees have a different agency status from independent contractors? Is there any reason or justification for treating employees and independent contractors similarly for agency purposes?

· Donald drives for Super, a company that provides a network for drivers to pick up and drop off customers who need a ride. The service is very similar to a taxi service. The individuals driving for Super have their own cars and their own insurance. They work whenever they like. The driver logs into an application that notifies her when a Super customer needs a ride. She confirms that they will provide the ride and she is off. The passenger pays Super directly and Super later remits payment to the driver. What factors in this scenario would be used to determine whether Donald is an employee or an independent contractor?

Transcript

Types of Principals

Principals are categorized based upon whether their identity is disclosed to third parties with whom the agent interacts on their behalf:

· disclosed principal—A disclosed principal’s identity is known to third parties dealing with the agent.

· partially disclosed principal—A partially disclosed principal is known by third-parties to exist, but her exact identity is unknown. This type of relationship exists when there is some benefit to the principal to remain anonymous to third parties interacting with the agent.

· undisclosed principal—The existence of an undisclosed principal is unknown to a third party. The third party believes that she is interacting only with the agent.

These categorizations of principal are important in determining the rights and duties of the principal, agent, and third party.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about the ability of an agent to act on behalf of a undisclosed and partially-disclosed principal? Is this fair to a third party? Why or why not?

· Winston is a special agent of ABC Corp hired to negotiate the purchase of intellectual property. He seeks to purchase a premium domain name from Alice. Alice is unaware that Winston wants to buy the domain name for some third party, but does not know that he works for ABC. What type of agent is Winston? How would it affect Winston’s status if Alice found out that he works for ABC? What if she did not know he was buying the domain name for a principal?

Principal-Agent Relationship Requirements

An agency relationship is created in the following manners:

· express agreement—A principal and agent may expressly agree to form an agency relationship. The agreement can be oral or in writing. The principal must simply confer the authority upon the agent to act on her behalf. The subject matter of the agency relationship must be legal. The agency has the express authority granted in the agency agreement and the implied authority to undertake tasks incidental to that objective. If the duties of the agent include executing a contract subject to the statute of frauds, the agency relationship may need to be in writing to be enforceable. An express agency relationship is often created pursuant to a legal document known as a power of attorney. The power of attorney may create a general or special agency relationship.

· implied agency—An agency may be implied from the facts or circumstances surrounding an individual’s actions on behalf of another. If the principal acts in a way that demonstrates an intent for an individual to act on her behalf, this may imply an agency relationship. The parties to an agency relationship do not need to understand the law of agency or understand what it means to be a principal or agent.

· ratification—Ratification is a contract principle. If an individual undertakes actions on behalf of another, these actions may be outside of any express or implied authority. If, however, the principal acknowledges and accepts the agent’s actions, this is known as “ratification” of the agency relationship. The principal ratifies the agent’s actions, after the fact. Agency by ratification is only possible when the principal is fully disclosed.

· by estoppel—If a third-party reasonably relies on an agent’s representation that she has authority to act on behalf of the principal, the principal may be bound by the actions of the agent. Generally, the principal must act or fail to act in a manner that causes a third party to reasonably believe that an agency relationship exists, when in fact there is no agency. Agency by estoppel is based upon principles of fairness. It would be unfair to detriment a third party who reasonably believed that the agent had authority to act on behalf of the principle, and the principal was the source or cause of that belief. Agency by estoppel is only possible with fully-disclosed principals. For example, Bill is James’ agent. James terminates the agency relationship. Nonetheless, unbeknownst to James, Bill continues to transact with third parties on James’ behalf. James fails to notify third parties of Bill’s termination. James may be bound to any agreement entered into by Bill.

· by necessity—Agency by necessity arises when one party makes a decision on behalf of another person who is unable to do so. The decision must be essential in nature and it must be in the interest of the principal in making that decision. As such, the law will impute a de facto agency relationship where no actual agency exists. For example, Bill is hired to deliver Tom’s goods. He drops the goods off at the fulfillment center. The center says that there is no contract in place and intends to reject the goods. Tom is out of country and cannot be reached. The goods will spoil if not accepted. Bill signs the warehousing agreement on Tom’s behalf.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about the ability to form an agency relationship without a principal expressly authorizing the agent to act on her behalf? What intent should be required before a court can find that an implied agency exists? What constitutes ratification of an agent’s actions by a principal? When is reliance upon an agent’s representations about her authority reasonable? Should a third party be required to verify an agent’s actual authority? How great must the need be for a court to find an agency by necessity?

· Terrence hires Joe as a general manager of his business. Joe routinely purchases supplies for the business, though this authority is not in his job description. Terrence never gave Joe the authority to enter into these purchase agreements, but he routinely acknowledges Joe’s actions and keeps the purchased goods. When Terrence falls sick, Joe handles all store operations, including signing some major purchase orders that Joe generally signs. These purchases were necessary to continue business operations. One of the purchase orders, however, is for the wrong type of goods. The error potentially costs Terrence’s business thousands of dollars. When Terrence recovers and learns of the purchase order, he is furious and refuses to honor the purchase agreement. What are the arguments for and against Terrence’s liability for Joe’s errant purchase order?

Duties of a Principal?

Generally, a principal owes the following duties to the agent:

· duty to compensate—An agency relationship may be paid or gratuitous. The terms of an agency may be laid out in the agency agreement. If the agency agreement does not indicate the terms of compensation, the principal is obligated to provide the agent with reasonable compensation. For example, default rules in a relationship with a sales agent dictate that the agent will earn a reasonable commission on sales induced or completed.

· duty to reimburse—The principal must reimburse the agent for a reasonable amount expended in carrying out her duties. Reasonable reimbursement includes the cost of travel, meals, lodging, incidental expenses, etc.

· duty to indemnify—Generally, a principal must indemnify an agent for liability incurred in the performance of her duties. This generally arises when the instructions of the principal subject the agent to liability to a third party. If an agent exceeds or acts outside of the scope of her authority, the principal may be relieved from the duty to indemnify. If the principal later ratifies the actions of the agent, she will incur the obligation to indemnify the agent against liability.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about the default duties owed by a principal to an agent? Why do you think these are the default standards? Do you believe there should be any other or additional duties of the principal?

· Ethan hires Naomi to serve as his buying agent. The employment agreement is very short and lists only Naomi’s primary responsibilities and compensation. Pursuant to her job description, Naomi will make purchases for the business but will not disclose that she is an agent of the business. One of her business deals goes bad and a client sues her for breach of contract. What are Ethan’s responsibilities in this situation?

Duties of an Agent

Agents generally have the following duties to the principal:

· loyalty—An agent has the duty of loyalty to act for the principal’s advantage and not to act to benefit herself at the principal’s expense. An agent is expected to refrain from undertaking actions personally that would conflict with the purpose of the agency. An employee has a lower duty of loyalty with regard to opportunities that are outside of the employee’s duties or responsibilities to the employer. Generally, this means that an agent may not simultaneously represent the principal and another party to a transaction.

Employees are agents of the employer. If an employee does not have permission, she violates a duty of loyalty by undertaking activities for a third party that are similar to the duties of the employee in the agency relationship. This is seen as competing with the employer. If, however, she performs services unrelated to or not the type of services the employer would seek to provide to the client, she does not a breach a duty by providing those services. This is true even if the employee provides those services to a client of the employer.

For example, I work for ABC Corp as a professional service provider. A potential client comes in to seek the services of ABC Corp. I cannot compete with ABC Corp by trying to convince the client to pay me to serve them personally rather than hire ABC Corp. I also have a side job selling supplies to construction contractors. This is a completely different line of business from ABC Corp. If it does not conflict with ABC Corp’s services, I can offer my supplies for sale to the client without violating my duty of loyalty.

· duty of care—An agent has a duty to exercise due care and diligence when carrying out the responsibilities of the agency. This is often referred to as a duty to not act negligently in carrying out the principal’s affairs. For example, I work for ABC Corp as an accountant. I represent ABC Corp in every action I undertake as part of my employment, such as preparing client taxes. I have a duty to ABC Corp and the client to exercise reasonable care in carrying out my job duties.

· information and disclosure—The agent has a duty to protect all confidential information of the principal, such as trade secrets. Further, the agent has a duty to keep the principal fully informed of all material information acquired as a result of the agency relationship. For example, I am a sale agent for ABC Corp. I receive an offer from a customer to undertake a joint venture with ABC Corp. I have a duty to transmit this information to ABC Corp. I acquired this information as a result of the agency relationship, and it is obviously outside of my unilateral decision-making authority.

· obedience—The agent has a duty to obey the reasonable instructions from the principal. For example, I work for ABC Corp selling insurance. ABC provides me detailed training and instructions on what types of policies to write and the client area that I can serve. I have a duty to obey these instructions as agent of my employer.

· accounting—The agent has a duty to account to the principal for monies handled. Further, the agent may have a duty to account to third parties for whom money is handled. This includes situations where an agent collects too much money from a third party and is still in possession of those funds or when an agent intentionally collects funds that belong to the third party and the principal is undisclosed. For example, I am a financial advisor for ABC Corp. I am responsible for reporting and keeping accurate records regarding all money or value transferred or received in carrying out my job duties. Note that the principal-agent relationship is a fiduciary or trust-based relationship. The agent may have any other duties as established in the agency agreement.

Ask Yourself

· Should the duty of loyalty and care be the same for an agent in every situation? Why or why not? Should these duties vary depending upon whether the agent is a limited or general agent? Why or why not?

· Carol is an employee of Rob’s accounting firm. She is a CPA, but she has been thinking of breaking away from the firm and starting her own practice. One day, a representative from a large corporation walks into the CPA firm and inquires about accounting services. Carol is strongly considering offering her personal services to the representative’s firm? Are there any issues in this situation?

Contractual Obligations

A principal is generally bound to third parties pursuant to the contracts entered into by the agent on behalf of the principal. This means that the principal is responsible for any obligations incurred by the agent that are within her authority. An agent has varying sources of authority when dealing with third parties.

· actual authority—Actual authority is the express authority from the principal allowing the agent to enter into obligations (contracts) on her behalf. It can be specific instructions to do so or generally included in her job duties. The principal is bound to third parties if disclosed, partially disclosed, or undisclosed. For example, Arnold is an employee of ABC Corp. He signs an employee agreement indicating that he will sell products manufactured by ABC Corp directly to retailers. He has express authority to enter into any contracts with retailers for the sale of ABC-manufactured goods.

· implied authority—Implied authority concerns the authority to enter into obligations that a reasonable person would imply from the agent’s position, title, or past course of dealings. If an employee has the title of vice president, it implies a great deal of authority to act on behalf of the business. Further, if an employee entered into a previous contract on behalf of the principal, it may imply that she can enter into similar contracts in the future. This principle can only apply to disclosed and partially disclosed principals. There can never be implied authority to act on behalf of an undisclosed principal. For example, Beth is hired by ABC Corp with the title of Senior Sales Manager. 123 Corp seeks to purchase a shipment of supplies manufactured by ABC Corp. Even if Beth is expressly prohibited in her employment agreement from entering into direct sales agreements, it is reasonable for a retailer to believe that a person with her title has that authority. If a retailer is unaware of Beth’s limitations and Beth signs a sales contract on behalf of ABC Corp, ABC Corp will be bound by the contract. Beth may be liable to ABC Corp, but her title implies this authority to transact with third parties in this manner.

· apparent authority—Apparent authority arises from the reasonable representations of the agent to third parties. That is, when the agent represents that she has authority to enter into a contract on behalf of the principal, her actions will bind the principal if a reasonable person would believe those representations. The 3rd party’s belief must generally result from some action or inaction by the principal. This principle applies to disclosed and partially disclosed principals. There can be no apparent authority if the principal is not disclosed to the third party. For example, Gina works for ABC Corp. She has a generic title of manager. She is limited in her ability to sign purchase agreements on behalf of ABC Corp. She does, however, routinely negotiate the terms of purchase agreements with vendors. She then transmits the purchase agreements to her boss who signs them. The vendor never deals with anyone other than Gina. If Gina decides to start by personally signing the purchase agreement, ABC Corp will likely be bound by the contracts. By signing the agreements, she is representing to vendors that she has authority to do so. It is likely reasonable for vendors to believe that she has this authority, as Gina is the primary point of contact for negotiating the agreements.

· ratification—While an agent may bind the principal to the extent of her authority, the principal is also bound if she ratifies the conduct of the agent that is beyond her express, implied, or apparent authority. That is, if the principal accepts or takes advantage of the agent’s actions, she impliedly ratifies those actions as taken on her behalf. In such a situation, this expands the implied and apparent authority of the agent when undertaking future actions. Ratification can only take place if the principal is disclosed or partially disclosed.

In each of the above situations, a disclosed principal is liable to third parties dealing with the agent. If the agent exceeds her express authority, the third party may still have the ability to back out of the contract. The third party is generally bound by the contract if the principal ratifies the agent’s conduct before the third-party finds out about the lack of authority and withdraws.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about the doctrines of implied and apparent authority? Should an agent have the ability to bind an agent in contract when the agent does not have actual authority to do so? Why or why not? Should the standard be different for limited and general agents? Why or why not? Should the onus be on the employer to protect itself by informing third parties of the limited authority of the agent, or should the onus be on the third-parties to verify the authority of the agent? What is your justification for this opinion?

· Kristy is an operations manager for ABC Corp. She has authority to enter into agreements for operational supplies. She does not, however, have authority to enter into sales agreements with retailers of ABC Corp products. In a couple of instances she is called upon to assist in putting together custom sales orders for large retailers. In these situations, Kristy was the primary point of contact with the retailers. 123 Corp learns about ABC Corps products through one of the retailers who previously worked with Kristy. 123 Corp contacts Kristy about putting together a custom sales package. What is Kristy’s authority to deal with 123 Corp.? If Kristy enters into an unauthorized agreement with 123 Corp, under what theory might ABC Corp be bound by the contract? Why?

Agents’ Liability

An agent acting within the scope of her authority is not liable to third parties on obligations entered into on behalf of the principal. Even if the agent exceeds her express authority, her implied authority may bind the principal to the agreement and relieve her from any contractual liability to the third party. The important point is that the agent must act on behalf of the principal and disclose that relationship to the third party. If the agent is acting on behalf of a principal, but fails to disclose her agency status, it may subject her to liability to the third party. In some cases, it may also serve to bind the principal once the agency relationship is determined.

If the agent goes beyond her express authority, she may be liable to the principal for any obligations binding the principal to third parties. That is, the principal may be able to recover damages suffered because of the agent exceeding her authority.

For example, I work for ABC Corp. I enter into an agreement with 123 Corp on behalf of ABC Corp. I am not personally obligated to perform the contract. If I fail to tell 123 Corp that I work for ABC Corp (123 Corp believes that I have my own business), I am liable to 123 Corp if ABC Corp does not perform the contract. ABC Corp is obligated to perform the contract if my entering the contract was in my express, implied, or apparent authority. If I did not have express or implied authority, but 123 Corp realized I was acting on behalf of an agent, ABC Corp may be liable if I had apparent authority. In such a situation, ABC Corp may be able to sue me for any losses suffered.

Ask Yourself

· Should an agent who exceeds her express authority be liable to the principal? Why or why not? Should she be liable to the third-party? Why or why not?

· Practice Question: Agnes is an agent of Emory Corp, a technology company that sells subscriptions to its cloud-based software. Agnes has the general title of manager, but has no express authority in her employment agreement. Agnes routinely negotiates sales agreements with large companies that are clients of Emory Corp. Agnes enters into an agreement with Tech, LLC that is far larger than any deal Agnes previously negotiated. The agreement is very poorly negotiated and it will cause a huge loss for Emory Corp. What is Emory Corp’s obligation? What are Agnes’s potential obligations and liabilities?

Principals’ Liability

An individual is always liable for her own conduct. Whenever an individual is held liable for the actions of another, this is known as vicarious liability. In the context of agency, the agent is acting vicariously for the principal. A principal is responsible for the tortious acts of an agent pursuant to a doctrine known as respondeat superior. More specifically, an agent may create legal liability for the principal for actions taken by the agent “within the scope of the agency.” In such cases, the principal and agent are “jointly and severally” liable for the harm caused by the agent’s conduct. An act is within the scope of the agency if the purpose behind the action taken is to advance the interests of the principal. As such, if any act taken by an employee in an effort to advance the employer’s interest is a tort, the employer may be liable for that conduct.

Generally, intentional torts are generally not considered to be within the scope of an employee’s duties or employment. As such, a principal will not be liable for the intentional torts committed by an employee unless the principal ordered or condoned the tortious conduct. Even if a tort is within the scope of employment, it will not relieve the agent from personal liability for her actions.

For example, I am an employee of a corporation. While carrying out my duties, I act negligently and harm a third party. The third party sues the corporation and me. The corporation will be liable for my negligent act because I was acting within the scope of my job responsibilities when I committed the tort.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about a business being held liable for the tortious activity of its agents (employees)? Does it matter if the tort is negligence, intentional, or strict liability? How do you think the court should define “within the scope of employment”?

· Mitchell is an employee of Big Corp. His primary responsibilities are to deliver company goods to retailers. When out driving to a retailer’s location, Mitchell is following to closely and accidentally rear ends Bertha. Bertha sues Mitchell for negligence. What is the likely result for Big Corp?

Frolic and Detour

A “frolic and detour” is a general defense to vicarious tort liability. It states that the principal should not be liable for the tortious acts of the agent when the agent is acting outside the scope of her employment and for the benefit of someone other than the employer. Plainly stated, an employee who is on a frolic or detour is no longer acting for the employer. 

A frolic is when an employee abandons the employer’s business objectives and pursues personal interests. A detour occurs when an employee substantially deviates from an employer’s instructions or rules. Generally, both a frolic and detour must be present to relieve an employer from liability for the agent’s actions.

For example, an employee providing services for her employer at the location of a client is an agent acting within the scope of her employment. If, however, the employee takes the company vehicle and goes on a personal errand that is not authorized, the employee is likely outside the scope of her employment. Suppose while running these errands she gets into an automobile accident that is her fault. The employer would be able to argue that the deviation from her duties as employee was a frolic and detour and relieved her of liability for the employee’s tort.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about the doctrine of respondeat superior? Should a principal be held liable for the tortious acts of an agent if committed within the scope of employment? Why or why not? How would you define scope of employment? Does it matter to you if the agent was also acting in her personal interest when committing the tort? In your opinion, how much of a deviation from her job duties must an employee vary in order for it to be considered a frolic and detour? Can you think of any situations in which a frolic or detour should still subject a principal to liability?

· Mitchell is an employee of Big Corp. His primary responsibilities are to deliver company goods to retailers. When out driving to a retailer’s location, Mitchell decides to stop by his house and have lunch. Big Corp has a strict policy against taking work trucks home or using company trucks for any purpose other than delivering Big Corp products to retailers. When backing out of his driveway, Mitchell hits Tom who is out jogging. Tom suffers injuries and sues Mitchell and Big Corp. What will Big Corp have to show to defend the action for Mitchell’s negligence? What facts in this situation may hinder Big Corp’s defense?

Termination of Agency Relationship

The establishment, duration, and termination of the agency relationship is generally governed by the agreement between the principal and agent. In the absence of an express agreement, several default rules apply regarding the point at which the agency relationship terminates. Below are common rules for terminating the agency relationship:

· withdrawal by either party—A principal or agent may withdraw from the relationship at any time. This legal authority is separate from the contractual right to withdraw. While withdrawal terminates the agency relationship, it may lead to liability of the withdrawing party. For example, Daisy hires Jeb as a sales agent for her new product line. Jeb will earn a commission on sales of the product. Jeb studies the product lines, develops a sales plan, and hits the road. Shortly after the relationship begins, Daisy decides to hire Luke and fire Jeb. Daisy’s withdrawal terminates the agency relationship with Jeb. Jeb, however, may have the legal right to seek damages against Daisy for terminating the relationship.

· withdrawal by both parties—The parties can terminate the agency relationship upon mutual consent.

· termination by the principal—Either party may terminate the agency relationship, even if it violates a contractual agreement between the parties. A principal will be subject to a breach of contract action for terminating the agency relationship if the agent’s status is part of an agreement that is supported by consideration and terminating the agency relationship will harm the agent’s rights. This scenario commonly arises in an agency coupled with an interest. An agency relationship is coupled with interest when the agent has a specific interest in the subject matter of the agency, such as a consignment of goods for resale. For example, I enter into a contract with Ernest to package and sell his products on the Internet. In exchange for my effort, I will keep in percentage of the sale value. As such, the agency is coupled with an interest and cannot be revoked without breaching a contract.

· renunciation by the agent—The agent can renounce the business of the principal and terminate her agency status and authority. This may, however, violate a contractual relationship between the parties. For example, I enter into a contract to serve as your agent. I may terminate the agency by renouncing my duties. Unless I have a justification, my actions will likely violate my contractual obligations to you.

· duties of agent complete—If the purpose of the agency ceases to exist, the agency relationship terminates. This often arises when the agent discharges all of her agency obligations. Further, it could arise when the subject matter of the agency no longer exists. For example, You higher me to represent you in the sale of your real estate. The real estate is the subject of an eminent domain action and is taken by the government. The agency relationship terminates when the purpose of my agency is gone.

· death or incapacity—The agency relationship terminates upon the death or incapacity of either party.

· bankruptcy—The agency relationship terminates upon the liquidation or reorganization of either party.

The above situations resulting in termination of the agency relationship are default rules. The parties may reserve any rights or restrictions on terminating the agency relationship within their agreement.

Ask Yourself

· How do you feel about either party’s right to terminate the agency relationship? What should the remedy be if termination of the agency relationship by a party violates a contract between the parties? Should a party have additional rights if she is harmed by the termination of the agency and the other party’s rights are not? Why or why not?

· Earl runs a showroom for baby products. Gayle, the inventor of a new product, consigns a large quantity of goods with Earl. Earl agrees to display the goods and represent them to potential retailers. Earl earns a percentage of all future sales to the retailer as compensation for his services. Can Gayle cancel the agency relationship?

A company uses its distribution channels to promote, sell, and deliver its products or services to end users. These channels may include wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and agents. The supply chain is a longer channel that comprises raw materials, individual components, and final products that are delivered to customers. Companies only take part of the overall value that is generated at each step of the supply chain. When a company expands downstream or upstream or acquires competitors, it is trying to gain a larger portion of the overall supply chain value (Kotler & Keller, 2015).

It is common for a company to perceive itself as an integral unit of a value network composed of the formal and informal connections the company uses to purchase, modify, enhance, and deliver its final product to its end users. Value networks are complex and fluid, and change over time. A value network consists of the numerous other businesses the company works with vertically within its distribution channel and horizontally across other businesses that contribute to product creation and dissemination. Value networks strategically combine capabilities, allowing companies to reduce costs and maximize efficiency at every step of their supply and distribution chains, making strategic alliances crucial (Marshall & Johnston, 2011).

References

Kotler, P., & Keller, K. (2015). Marketing management (15th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson.

Marshall, G. W., & Johnston, M. W. (2011). Essentials of marketing management. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Licenses and Attributions

Business Law: An Introduction, by TheBusinessProfessor.com, Jason M. Gordon & Colleagues has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © Business Professor, LLC. 

The video What is an Agency Relationship has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © 2016, Business Professor, Inc.

The video What is the Scope of the Principal Agent Relationship has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © 2016, Business Professor, Inc.

The video Employee vs Independent Contractor has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © 2016, Business Professor, Inc

Transcript

What is an Agency Relationship?Video Transcript

So what is agency? Well, this is any relationship between two individuals where one party acts on behalf of another party pursuant to their, some level of authorization they've been given by that party. Or that arises as a result of their relationship.

So, when one party acts on behalf of another, generally that involves dealing with third parties, okay. So the person authorizing a person to act on their behalf is the principal, okay. Principal.

And the person acting on behalf of the principal is the agent. And then, of course, like I said, the principal authorizes the agent to act or deal with, on their behalf, third parties. And the key characteristic here is that the agent is standing in the shoes of the principal.

The principal will be responsible for the actions of the agents done within the scope of their authority, okay. And they'll be liable to any extent or obligated to the third party with whom the agent deals.

 

Close

×

Transcript

What is the Scope of the Principal Agent Relationship?Video Transcript 

Okay, what is the scope of the agency relationship between the principal and the agent? And scope means what is the extent of that relationship? What are the rights of the agent with regard to the principal? Well, it depends on whether it's a general agent or a limited agent. Well, a limited agent is going to have specific or express authority for a specific function, task or undertaking, okay. So the agreement between the principal and the agent will outline that.

Now, there may be additional authority based upon some perception by third parties as to the authority of the special agent or limited agent in that situation to undertake that task. But by and large, the extent or scope of the relationship is outlined in that specific purpose identified by the principal in hiring the agent for that task or purpose.

Now, a general agent, on the other hand, is, has authority that's broad. They can act almost in any way that the agent, that the principal themselves could act for a particular position or function that they're hired for. So general agents generally have general authority to act on behalf of the principal for this purpose. Employees in a specific position level are considered general agents. Where an attorney, for example, you hire to represent you in court is your limited agent for that purpose to, for that proceeding. Or, if you hire a real estate agent to represent you in a home closing transaction. This is a specific task or function that you're hiring them for. Were an employee to undertake the job responsibilities or to oversee this task or function would have general authority for you within the scope of caring out that task as well. So, again, the specific authority is less defined than would be in a limited or special agent relationship.

 

Close

×

Transcript

Employee vs Independent ContractorVideo Transcript

 

So what is the difference between an employee and an independent contractor, and why is that concept important in terms of performance of a contract? Well, the difference between an employee and independent contractor is based on control.

An employee, the employer exercises an extensive amount of control over the services or functions that they provide for or on behalf of the business. Okay. The employer will control things like the times of the day that they work, their location of work, the details of the tasks that they perform, et cetera. And there's more of a direct reporting of responsibilities of accomplishments, tasks, and transfer of information, et cetera, up the chain to the employer.

So in that case, when that level of control exists, it is an employer-employee relationship, no matter what the title of the relationship is. Again, it just depends legally on the amount of control that exists. An independent contractor, on the other hand, that level of control is not present. That is, the independent contractor has their own business.

They are not an employee of the employer. They perform services, and their services are simply hired out to that independent contractor. So the employer doesn't have that same level of control. They don't control the minute details of how the independent contractor carries out the functions or the duties for or on behalf of the business. So that's the difference.

Now why is that important for contracts? Well, as we'll talk about in a separate video, the ability of an agent to bind or obligate the business in contract is based on the level of authority of that agent or employee. So in this case, an employee is definitely an agent of the business with a certain level of authority to bind the business, and generally to bind the business in any level of work that is in the ordinary course of the business or in the performance of their duties for the business.

An independent contractor, on the other hand, generally does not have the authority. That is not expressed. That is, unless the business expressly grants the independent contractor that authority. The independent contractor does not have authority to enter into contracts and to, therefore, bind the business or obligate the business on those contracts. Rather, they can enter into contracts, obligate themselves, but do not have that requisite level of authority.

So that's the separation. That's the difference between independent contractor and an employee for purposes of contract formation.

Close

ADDITIONAL READING RESOURCE BELOW.

Learning Topic

Employment at Will

Transcript

Employment at will is a doctrine of common law that allows either the employee or the employer to terminate an employment relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without notice, and even for a morally reprehensible reason, so long as the ending of the relationship does not fall into an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

Employment at will is the prevailing legal doctrine concerning employment relationship termination in 49 US states (not Montana). In the overwhelming majority of the United States, employment at will and its exceptions govern the rules by which one may legally terminate an employee.

The generally accepted exceptions to employment at will include

· express contract,

· implied contract,

· promissory estoppel,

· public policy violations, and

· good faith and fair dealing.

We discuss these five exceptions below.

Express Contract Exception

If an employer terminates an employee in violation of the terms of an express contract between the employer and employee, then the employee can sue the employer for breach of contract (and, in some states, wrongful termination).

For example, an employment contract guarantees that the employee will be employed by the employer for a definite duration of time, with cognizable boundaries, such as a "one-year period" or "for six months." The employer terminates the employee before the stated period has expired, and that termination is not otherwise permitted by the contract.

Likewise, consider a case where an employment contract states that an employee can be terminated only "for cause" or "for just cause," and the employee is terminated without cause.

Implied Contract Exception

Implied contracts are contracts created by the conduct of the parties, which include any representations or assurances made by the employer prior to or during the term of employment. In some states, an implied contract is an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

For example, if an employer provides an employee handbook to a new employee, the provisions in the handbook may be considered part of the contractual relationship. Often, such handbooks outline a procedure for performance review, discipline, and discharge of the employee. An employer who fails to live up to procedural obligations prior to discharging an employee could be liable.

Promissory Estoppel Exception

In many states, promissory estoppel acts as an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. That is, when an employer makes a promise to an employee of employment or a period of employment, and the employee relies on that promise to his detriment, and it leads to injustice, then an employee may be able to have that promise enforced regardless of employment at will.

For example, John is offered a job with Widget Co. He discusses with Widget's manager that, to take the job, he needs to move from California to New Jersey and give up an already lucrative position with benefits. The manager assures John that he will have gainful employment and a substantially larger income with Widget Co. for at least a year if he makes the move. In reliance on this promise, John quits his job and moves to New Jersey to begin work at Widget Co. After one week, John is laid off. Despite being an employee at will, John may be able to recover under the theory of promissory estoppel.

Public Policy Violations Exception

Most states in the United States prohibit an employer from firing an employee if the reason for the action violates some readily accepted public policy. This prohibition prevents an employer from terminating an employee for exercising a legal right, including a right contained in state and federal laws; or for failing to perform an illegal act for the employer.

Firing an employee for performing some public duty (showing up to jury duty), for exposing illegal conduct (such as reporting violation of some law to the employer or a government agency), or for exercising her rights as a US or state citizen (such as voting) are all against public policy.

This exception to employment at will encompasses the inability to terminate an employee if doing so would violate her state or federal statutory rights. If an employee is terminated because of her race, this may be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and so an otherwise at-will employee would have a claim against the employer for violating a federal statute.

Moreover, it is against public policy to terminate an employee for refusing to commit an illegal act, such as a crime.

Good Faith and Fair Dealing Exception

A minority of states impose upon the employer a duty to exercise good faith and fair dealing in regard to all employees. This doctrine, to varying degrees, means that an employer must treat an employee fairly in the decision to fire her. This generally means that an employer would violate these duties in firing an employee without due cause or justification.

The preceding five generally accepted exceptions to employment at will allow injured parties to seek recovery even in the face of the employment-at-will doctrine. As such, they limit the circumstances by which an employer can terminate an employee.

Licenses and Attributions

Business Law: An Introduction, by TheBusinessProfessor.com, Jason M. Gordon & Colleagues has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © Business Professor, LLC. 

SECOND ITEM ON READING RESOURCES.

Learning Topic

Business Criminal Law

Criminal laws prohibit or require certain conduct such that violations of the laws would constitute an offense against the general public (society as a whole). Criminal law convictions may result in jail or prison sentences, fines (paid to the government), or, in some cases (in some states and federally), the death penalty.

The Constitution provides both state governments and the federal government with the power to pass and enforce criminal laws, and also places limitations and affirmative obligations on the government in relation to criminal defendants. That is, the Constitution sets the outermost boundaries of how the government can investigate, arrest, try, and sentence criminal defendants. The Constitution, through its Eighth Amendment, also sets the minimum requirements for the bail and prison conditions of criminal offenders.

Resources

· Receiving Stolen Property

· Criminal Law & Procedure

ANOTHER ITEM ON READING RESOURCE.

Learning Topic

Law of Torts

The legal system in the United States is a common-law system with civil law and criminal law components. The civil-law component of the US common-law system should not be confused with the civil-law system, which is a separate system of law originating in ancient Rome and adopted by most European countries. The US common-law system includes different procedures for redressing civil-law violations (e.g., the law of tort, contract, agency, employment, divorce, and business organizations) than for redressing criminal-law violations (e.g., larceny, murder, rape, and robbery).

Tort law, an important component of civil law within the US common-law system, generally encompasses situations where an individual’s conduct causes harm to another. A tort is literally translated from French as a wrong. These wrongs give rise to claims in court, when a specific statutory or common-law tort is committed. When a tort is committed, one may seek monetary compensation (damages) for the tort in court.

Tort law may be divided into three broad categories of tort: intentional torts, negligence, and strict liability torts. Intentional torts generally require that one “intended” to cause the consequences of the act. That is, one must have intended to perform the act that caused harm to another. Negligence generally requires that one be at fault for committing the act. Negligence theory underlies many personal-injury actions, such as car accidents. Strict liability torts require neither intent nor fault; simply causing harm to an individual while performing one of an enumerated list of strict liability torts gives rise to damages (even if a person did not intend the act and was not at fault for it).

Intentional torts often have counterparts within criminal law. For example, if Joe strikes Dave across the face with a stick, Joe may be liable for a civil battery and a criminal battery. The civil action for battery may result in Dave receiving compensation for the harm done to him, including costs of medical bills, pain and suffering, and compensation for work missed while in the hospital. Simultaneously, a criminal action may be brought against Dave for a criminal battery. The criminal action is not about compensation, but instead is about punishing Joe for committing a crime. Punishments for the crime may include jail time, fines (paid to the government), and community service.

Although some intentional torts have criminal counterparts, not all do. In some cases, a wrong against an individual is merely a civil wrong and has no criminal repercussions. Certain defamation claims, for example, may result in compensation but have no criminal counterpart, so will not result in a correlative criminal action. One very famous incident involving both civil and criminal claims is that of O.J. Simpson, who was tried criminally and found not guilty. However, O.J. Simpson was found civilly liable to the family members of the deceased and had to pay those families millions in compensation for the civil wrongs.

Check Your Knowledge

Choose the best answer to each question.

Question 1

Which of the following is the key characteristic of a common law system (the answer being the central feature that distinguishes it from a civil law system)?

Common law systems use juries.

Common law systems utilize judges to interpret the law.

Common law systems abide by precedent.

Common law systems are rooted in Europe.

Incorrect. Although common law systems employ juries for qualifying cases, so do many civil law systems.

Incorrect. Although common law systems utilize judges to interpret the law, so do civil law systems.

Correct. The system of precedent is the key characteristic that distinguishes common law systems from civil law systems. The concept of precedent is adopted solely by common law countries. It holds that decisions of higher courts—in a jurisdiction—bind the lower courts within the same jurisdiction. This is often referred to as stare decisis (or, to stand by one's decisions). In civil law systems, previous court decisions may be influential on subsequent ones, but they are not binding.

Incorrect. Both the common law and civil law systems are rooted in different European traditions. The common law system comes primarily from England, and the civil law system comes primarily from Rome, Italy.

Question 2

Which of the following is NOT a type of tort?

intentional tort

breach of contract

negligence

strict liability

Incorrect. Intentional tort is a type of tort that requires a finding of "intent" by the wrongdoer.

Correct. Breaches of contract—even though they are civil actions within the US common law systems—are not categorized as a type of tort.

Incorrect. Negligence is type of tort that requires a finding of "fault" by the wrongdoer.

Incorrect. Strict liability is a type of tort that requires neither a finding of "fault," nor "intent" by the wrongdoer. Simply by engaging in certain activities and causing harm to another, one may be held strictly liable.

Question 3

Which of the following is the most accurate statement of the relationship between torts and crimes?

Some torts also involve correlative crimes, but not all torts involve correlative crimes.

All torts involve correlative crimes.

No torts involve correlative crimes.

Torts may be considered a branch of crimes.

Correct. Torts are a category of civil law within the US common law system. Crimes fall within criminal law within the US common law system. Although some torts, such as civil battery, also have correlative crimes—like criminal battery—not all torts have correlative crimes.

Incorrect. Defamation is an example of a type of tort that rarely, if ever, involves a correlative crime.

Incorrect. Some torts—such as a civil battery—do involve correlative crimes, such as a criminal battery.

Incorrect. Torts are a category of civil law within the US common law system. Crimes fall within criminal law within the US common law system. Neither may, at the present time, be considered a branch of the other—although, historically they are both rooted in English common law.

Question 4

Which of the following is NOT a type of invasion of privacy?

disclosure of private information

use of name of likeness

invade physical solitude

defamation

Incorrect. The unauthorized disclosure of certain private information is a type of invasion of privacy. Disclosure of highly-objectionable, private information about someone may be an invasion of that person's privacy. Generally, the information must be obtained by an individual who owes a duty of confidentiality to the individual whose rights are violated. In some cases, the information must be obtained without the person's consent.

Incorrect. The unauthorized use of a name or likeness is a type of invasion of privacy. Individuals have a property interest in their name and physical image. As such, appropriating an individual's name, or likeness, for business use without her consent violates her property rights.

Incorrect. The unauthorized invasion of physical solitude is a type of invasion of privacy. Individuals have an expectation of privacy in their home, and within other personal spaces. Viewing or monitoring such places is an invasion on the individual's physical solitude.

Correct. Although defamation is very similar to certain invasions of privacy, it is actually a separate tort involving the publication of an untrue statement about another that subjects that individual's character or reputation to contempt or ridicule.

Question 5

Which of the following torts involves a non-party to a contract knowingly inducing a party to the contract to fail to honor or breach the agreement?

interference with prospective advantage

disparagement

interference with contractual relations

wrongful appropriation of business interests

Incorrect. Interference with prospective advantage entails a situation in which there is a business relationship between the plaintiff and a third party. The defendant then acts in a way intended to disrupt the relationship. This conduct is done not for personal advantage but with the purpose of harming the plaintiff. The plaintiff may bring an action to recover the losses or damages sustained.

Incorrect. Disparagement is an untrue statement about someone's business acumen, product, or service. This tort may be addressed as defamation. However, some states lack a statute, or common law, protecting commercial rights against defamatory statements.

Correct. Interference with contractual relations often arises when one company raids another for employees. The raiding company knowingly induces employees to breach their employment contracts with their current employer.

Incorrect. Wrongful appropriation of business interests arises when a fiduciary breaches the duty of loyalty and appropriates someone else's intellectual property rights, such as patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, or good will.

Resources

· Common Law versus Civil Law Legal Systems

· Legal Theory & Foundations and Law of Torts

Licenses and Attributions

Business Law: An Introduction, by TheBusinessProfessor.com, Jason M. Gordon & Colleagues has been adapted with permission from Jason M. Gordon. © Business Professor, LLC.

THIRD ITEM ON READING RESOURCES.

Learning Topic

Tort Damages

The overarching purpose of tort law is to provide remedies, usually in the form of damages (monetary awards), to persons injured by the civil wrongs of others. Damages awarded for tort violations include compensatory and punitive damages.

The aim of compensatory damages is to place the injured party in the same position that party would have been in had the tort never been committed, that is, to make the injured party whole. Compensatory damages are sometimes categorized into two types: special and general compensatory damages. Special damages are quantifiable monetary losses incurred by the injured party, such as the cost of replacing or repairing damaged property, medical costs, past lost wages and benefits, future lost wages and benefits, and other quantifiable costs resulting from the tort. General damages, on the other hand, are not easily quantifiable and include pain and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of reputation, and loss of mental or physical capacity resulting from a tort.

In some egregious cases, courts also award punitive damages. Punitive damages are intended to punish a tortfeasor (person who commits a tort) for engaging in particularly wanton or reckless conduct that reflects a disregard for the interests of others. Punitive damages are often limited by courts to approximately three times the amount of compensatory damages, in order to satisfy the due process requirements of the Constitution (exceeding these approximate amounts may be deemed an unconstitutional deprivation of another person’s property). Thus, punitive damages are reserved for the most egregious of tort cases, and appeals often follow when a trial court awards them. They are generally only available for intentional torts, although they are sometimes available for cases of gross negligence.

Resources

· Tort Damages