Part A
Based on the above question we are required to advise Maya Stork regarding her liability and the validity of the order from Maya Stock towards the new supplier. It is also required for us to take note the chances of Maya being liable acts of agency. Maya broke her obligation when she ordered those expensive shampoo which she wasn’t supposed to do. This clearly was a breach of contract.
According to the Question Law of Agency is most suited to be applied. The law of Agency States that consensual relationships made by a contract or by law where one part, the person in charge, or known as the principal, grants authority to another party which is “The Agent”. The agent is under the influence of the principal and acts on his or her behalf
…show more content…
An agent must follow and obey instructions given by their principal and would be held responsible for the losses resulting from him/her disobedience and maybe charged for disobedience. An instruction clearly given by the principal to an agent cannot thereby enlarge the agent duty exceeding those that has been promised to be given, thus the agent cannot disobey reasonable orders given to them by their principal. Regarding the case, it is clearly shown that Maya has failed to follow simple instructions given by Kallesi. In this matter, the case Gilmour v Clark (1853), Gilmour gave specific instructions to Clark, a carrier, to Carry the goods to the docks and settle them on a ship, named “Earl of Zetland”.Clark willingly put the goods on another cargo ship called “The Magnet” instead. But some unfortunate accidents happen and in the end she ship sank and all the goods was lost. The agent breaches the instruction given by the principal, he is liable in damages for any loss suffered by the principal and the agent must exercise his skill and perform his obligation. It was a term of contract that the agent was not supposed to put the goods on another ship, thus Clark was liable to Gilmour for the value of the goods. If Maya wanted to order the extra supplies, she should have just asked permission from Kallesi to order the supplies, but instead she did it without Kallesi permission. Safe to say …show more content…
This case would be held in the Sherriff courts. Sherriff court is used because this court deals with majority of civil cases in Scotland. The jurisdiction of the court is almost the same as the Court of Session. There is no budget limit in the court of sheriff. The main role of a sheriffs is to sit as a temporary judge. Sheriff may impose a maximum prison sentence of 12 months or fine up to 10000 pounds. Sheriffs can handle any crimes except those serious ones, such as murder, rape and treason. In this cases, the sheriff court has authority for all claims under 5000 pounds. As the claim of damages between Kallesi, though they have some restrictions and Maya the claim of compensation was not exceeding the amount.The Sheriffs deal with many complicated and hard civil cases, including cases such as loan, debt, claims for damages and compensation, bankruptcy, bad behaviour and much more. The sheriff courts also hear almost all family actions also and have important roles into children
Maria had spoken with Eva over the phone concerning the correct total amount of $60,000 for rendering decorating services provided by Eva. Maria had sent a letter of the telephone conversation stating that Eva agreed to take $60,000 in full satisfaction obligation under the contract. Although Eva, changed her mind when depositing the check in the bank, she legally entered a mutual agreement over the telephone where it resulted in a unliquidated debt, payment is lower than actual.
Friganim Importing Co. v. B.N.S. International Sales Corp. Facts: Friganim Importing Company sued B.N.S. claiming that B.N.S. breached warranties in two contracts that they had entered into. In the first of the two contracts, Frigalimnet had agreed to sell 75,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. The second contract consisted of 50,000 pounds of 2.5 to 3 pound chickens and 25,000 pounds of 1.5 to 2 pound chickens. (smaller chickens where priced slightly higher in this contract than the first agreement)
ii) If one is the owner or operator, liability may attach even if some other
Ans. 6 The Court can overrule the decision for terminating Paul as he was not involved in the scheme. Due to his honesty he even admitted to be aware of the scheme. Moreover, no fraud was found in his facility and he should be held responsible for the warehouse for which he is in charge. Furthermore, higher management should be held responsible for not keeping an eye on the activities of supervisors at different locations.
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
However, the fourth element, which is "legal object," may not be satisfied between Sam and the chain store because there was nothing in writing, nothing was “drawn.” An oral promise would make the contract invalid if the completion of that promise will take more than a year from the date of agreement. However, if the chain store has written proof confirming Sam 's promise, for example, advertisements, invoices that the store only prepares in the regular course of business after an oral promise for a product delivery has been made, a court may consider Sam 's oral promise legally binding. Then it would be considered a "primary obligation" (since there was a debt incurred in anticipation of the sale of his invention at their stores). In that event, the contract does not need to be in writing to be enforced since primary obligations are not within the statute of frauds. So if the chain store does not get their 1000
Lexis Nexis 2013, Duress, Undue Influence, Breach of Fiduciary Obligation and Unconscionable Conduct [Internet]. viewed 13 March 2014,
In April 2008, Richard and Michelle McCaulley went to Nebraska Furniture Mart, Inc. (NFM) to buy some furniture. The items selected were to be special ordered by NFM and the total price was quoted at $10,770.70 through the phone by a sales associate. The McCaulleys accepted the price and paid a deposit of $3,500 by credit card. However, no documents were signed to finalize the deal and the salesperson did not mention any additional terms of conditions regarding pricing errors. Later, the McCaulleys received an invoice of $13,240.70 for an order on May 6th 2008. Michelle called NFM to complain and was sent a revised invoice of $10,840.70 which was still more expensive, but she accepted it.
“Agency relationships are formed by the mutual consent of a principal and an agent.” (Cheeseman, p.487) Our book goes on to cite the Restatement (Second) of Agency,
The English court system is adversarial in nature whereby the court takes the role of a moderator and pities the parties against each other so as each can prove their own case. Therefore, each party seeking to be believed will approach the court and give an account of the events that make up the dispute. The court will later on come to a final conclusion on who is liable or if the accused is guilty after considering all the facts, the documents adduced.
She was unable to sue the shopkeeper, as she was a third party. Therefore she sued the manufacturer and the court ruled in her favor, as the manufacturer owes a duty of care to its customers.
the agent could not do it otherwise in any way then how he is morally responsible for whatever
• any sexual act between an adult and a minor, or between two minors, when one exerts power over the
Some of the responsibilities of the managers include contacting the customers and explain them specific issues that postpone their orders. Often times, order require certificate of analysis which provides impurities of the material. Some items require specific amount of impurity based on the element and material. What do we do when specification does not meet the requirement? Customer is contacted momentarily, and additional tests are being conducted in house as well as with third party. Nothing leaves our doors until we know for certain we have followed all ethical guidelines and regulations.
An agency relationship is formed between two parties when one party (the agent) agrees to represent another party (the principal). Normally, all employees who deal with third parties are considered agents. Principal-Agent relationships are defined as the understanding that the agent will act for and on behalf of the principal. (Cheeseman) The agent assumes an obligation of loyalty to the principal that he will follow the principal’s instructions and will neither intentionally nor negligently act improperly in the performance of the act. An agent cannot take personal advantage of the business opportunities the agency position uncovers. A principal-agent relationship is fiduciary, meaning these obligations bring forth a fiduciary relationship of trust and confidence. As such, an agency relationship is governed by employment law.