Case Study: Schoenberger
SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS
6. It seems that, the principal is not liable to the customer for the value of the destroyed antique. This is because of the following reasons:
- The agent’s careless actions were not within the scope of their employment. If the agent acts negligently outside of their scope of employment with the principal, the principal is not liable for the damages occurred by the agent’s actions.
The agent has a specific job to do. He was to deliver goods to particular customer(s) for the principal. The agent took it upon himself to further his actions with the customer by helping bring the groceries inside and helping put them away which caused the antique to break.
Furthermore, the agent’s actions outside the scope of his employment …show more content…
created a relationship between the agent and the customer, thus, not involving the principal in this sense.
Due to the fact that the agent’s acts were unauthorized by the principal, the agent is responsible for the value of the destroyed antique to the customer.
8. In theory, the store will be liable to the customer for the damages and this is because;
- The store displayed apparent authority over the manager of the barbershop to the public. Because the store chose to advertise having these particular services within their store, they have made it assume to a third person that the agent has actual authority in which the customer would rely upon.
The principal intended for the agent to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. This changed when they chose to advertise to the public that the agent’s services were being conducted on behalf of the business.
Because the customer relies on this particular assumption, they also rely on the existence of an agency relationship. This would make the principal (Store) entitled to recover the damages of the customer caused by the agent.
SOLUTION TO TWO CASES
Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority (1980)
Schoenberger was selected for an employment offer with the Chicago Transit Authority (C.T.A.) as informed by Frank Zuchristian, in charge of recruiting for the C.T.A.
Data Center. Zuchristian also verbally informed Schoenberger that the remuneration offered would be $19,800. However, the formal offer made by the placement department was $19,300. Since the salary offered in formal offer of employment differed from what Frank communicated during his third meeting, Schoenberger contacted Frank regarding this mismatch before accepting the formal offer. Upon this query, Frank made some internal enquiries and informed Schoenberger that the mismatch happened due to a clerical error. Furthermore, Frank also promised to get it adjusted to $19,800 in coming salary review and suggested Schoenberger to accept the formal offer. Upon Frank’s promise, Schoenberger accepted the formal offer of $19,300 with an expectation to get it revised to $19,800 in upcoming salary review. However, the salary adjustment didn’t actually happen. Due to this, Schoenberger resigned and filed a suit against C.T.A. to recover …show more content…
damages.
Schoenberger filed the suit in opinion that Zuchristian had an “Apparent Authority” and made promises under that authority. However, C.T.A. argued that Zuchristian didn’t have any such authority, and hence they are not liable to pay any damage amount to Schoenberger.
Decision was given in favor of C.T.A. as court accepted C.T.A.’s argument. As per the rule of contractual liability, such a promise by an agent only holds true, if it is ratified by Principal. In this case, C.T.A. didn’t ratify the promise made by Frank as Bonner, who took over Frank, immediately informed Schoenberger that the adjustment in the salary was not likely to happen.
PlainDealer Publishing Co. v. Worrell (2008). in this Frederick worrell under the name of wrl advertising got an ad placed with plain dealer publishing company.
the ad placing activity was coordinated by a lady called Martha j. musil. advertisements were placed for April and June and there was a balance due against wrl advertising. a case was filed in august 2005, but soon after worrell filed for bankruptcy due to which the court put the case on stay under inactive docket. plain dealer asked the court to reactivate the case against musil only. the court agreed and heard both the parties, where musil showed forms that she was only working for worrell as agent. forms also showed that Ms. musil was only an employee and contact person and the bills were raised and sent in the name of wrl advertising only. the court ordered against musil and fined her with
$8720. musil appealed against the order. the court heard the appeal and said that although musil did not disclosed that the wrl was a fictitious organization but he still mentioned that the contact was being done in the name of wrl only and she was only an agent to the them. over here the court said that if an agent properly discloses that he is working for some principal and not on his own then he cannot be held liable personally. although musil was acting under a fictitious name but still she followed all the rules as regards an agent and principal relationship, hence she cannot be held liable personally.
SOLUTION TO MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. d
2. c
3. d
4. b
5. c
6. c
7. d
8. a
9. a
10. a
6. It seems that, the principal is not liable to the customer for the value of the destroyed antique. This is because of the following reasons:
- The agent’s careless actions were not within the scope of their employment. If the agent acts negligently outside of their scope of employment with the principal, the principal is not liable for the damages occurred by the agent’s actions.
The agent has a specific job to do. He was to deliver goods to particular customer(s) for the principal. The agent took it upon himself to further his actions with the customer by helping bring the groceries inside and helping put them away which caused the antique to break.
Furthermore, the agent’s actions outside the scope of his employment …show more content…
created a relationship between the agent and the customer, thus, not involving the principal in this sense.
Due to the fact that the agent’s acts were unauthorized by the principal, the agent is responsible for the value of the destroyed antique to the customer.
8. In theory, the store will be liable to the customer for the damages and this is because;
- The store displayed apparent authority over the manager of the barbershop to the public. Because the store chose to advertise having these particular services within their store, they have made it assume to a third person that the agent has actual authority in which the customer would rely upon.
The principal intended for the agent to be an independent contractor rather than an employee. This changed when they chose to advertise to the public that the agent’s services were being conducted on behalf of the business.
Because the customer relies on this particular assumption, they also rely on the existence of an agency relationship. This would make the principal (Store) entitled to recover the damages of the customer caused by the agent.
SOLUTION TO TWO CASES
Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority (1980)
Schoenberger was selected for an employment offer with the Chicago Transit Authority (C.T.A.) as informed by Frank Zuchristian, in charge of recruiting for the C.T.A.
Data Center. Zuchristian also verbally informed Schoenberger that the remuneration offered would be $19,800. However, the formal offer made by the placement department was $19,300. Since the salary offered in formal offer of employment differed from what Frank communicated during his third meeting, Schoenberger contacted Frank regarding this mismatch before accepting the formal offer. Upon this query, Frank made some internal enquiries and informed Schoenberger that the mismatch happened due to a clerical error. Furthermore, Frank also promised to get it adjusted to $19,800 in coming salary review and suggested Schoenberger to accept the formal offer. Upon Frank’s promise, Schoenberger accepted the formal offer of $19,300 with an expectation to get it revised to $19,800 in upcoming salary review. However, the salary adjustment didn’t actually happen. Due to this, Schoenberger resigned and filed a suit against C.T.A. to recover …show more content…
damages.
Schoenberger filed the suit in opinion that Zuchristian had an “Apparent Authority” and made promises under that authority. However, C.T.A. argued that Zuchristian didn’t have any such authority, and hence they are not liable to pay any damage amount to Schoenberger.
Decision was given in favor of C.T.A. as court accepted C.T.A.’s argument. As per the rule of contractual liability, such a promise by an agent only holds true, if it is ratified by Principal. In this case, C.T.A. didn’t ratify the promise made by Frank as Bonner, who took over Frank, immediately informed Schoenberger that the adjustment in the salary was not likely to happen.
PlainDealer Publishing Co. v. Worrell (2008). in this Frederick worrell under the name of wrl advertising got an ad placed with plain dealer publishing company.
the ad placing activity was coordinated by a lady called Martha j. musil. advertisements were placed for April and June and there was a balance due against wrl advertising. a case was filed in august 2005, but soon after worrell filed for bankruptcy due to which the court put the case on stay under inactive docket. plain dealer asked the court to reactivate the case against musil only. the court agreed and heard both the parties, where musil showed forms that she was only working for worrell as agent. forms also showed that Ms. musil was only an employee and contact person and the bills were raised and sent in the name of wrl advertising only. the court ordered against musil and fined her with
$8720. musil appealed against the order. the court heard the appeal and said that although musil did not disclosed that the wrl was a fictitious organization but he still mentioned that the contact was being done in the name of wrl only and she was only an agent to the them. over here the court said that if an agent properly discloses that he is working for some principal and not on his own then he cannot be held liable personally. although musil was acting under a fictitious name but still she followed all the rules as regards an agent and principal relationship, hence she cannot be held liable personally.
SOLUTION TO MULTIPLE CHOICE
1. d
2. c
3. d
4. b
5. c
6. c
7. d
8. a
9. a
10. a