Eth 316 Week 9 Final Paper
Focus ono Ethics Week 6
Luther ANDERSON
0292936
1. Generally, agents are under a duty to obey the lawful and reasonable instructions of the principal. Where the principal's instructions are clear, the agent does not normally have any discretion and must follow those instructions, unless an agent is a professional and the principal relies on the agent to exercise his professional skill and discretion in accomplishing the tasks he has been appointed to accomplish. However, if the principal's instructions are ambiguous or if the agent is not certain as to their meanings, the agent should clarify such instructions with the principal before acting. An agent is obligated to obey promptly and efficiently all lawful instructions of his principal. However, this duty plainly does not include an obligation to obey any unlawful instructions; for example, an instruction not to market the property to minorities or to misrepresent the condition of the property. Compliance with instructions the agent knows to be unlawful could constitute a breach of an agent’s duty of loyalty. The relationship between an …show more content…
I believe that the doctrine of respondent Superior does have some limitation, one of which is that even though it seeks to give liability to the party that would be more able to pay for loss for damage incurred. If for example the employee’s actions was unauthorized and outside the scope of his/her work the employer still must stand liability, situations like these happen often in the medical profession where patients are injured at the hands of unauthorized personnel and the employer becomes liable in a lawsuit. When the employee causes injury to a third party even it is unauthorized I believe that it is fair to have the employer stand liability however as I said before I do not agree with application of this doctrine in the cases where the action that injured the third party was reasonably taken upon the employee without authorization and outside their scope of their
Luther ANDERSON
0292936
1. Generally, agents are under a duty to obey the lawful and reasonable instructions of the principal. Where the principal's instructions are clear, the agent does not normally have any discretion and must follow those instructions, unless an agent is a professional and the principal relies on the agent to exercise his professional skill and discretion in accomplishing the tasks he has been appointed to accomplish. However, if the principal's instructions are ambiguous or if the agent is not certain as to their meanings, the agent should clarify such instructions with the principal before acting. An agent is obligated to obey promptly and efficiently all lawful instructions of his principal. However, this duty plainly does not include an obligation to obey any unlawful instructions; for example, an instruction not to market the property to minorities or to misrepresent the condition of the property. Compliance with instructions the agent knows to be unlawful could constitute a breach of an agent’s duty of loyalty. The relationship between an …show more content…
I believe that the doctrine of respondent Superior does have some limitation, one of which is that even though it seeks to give liability to the party that would be more able to pay for loss for damage incurred. If for example the employee’s actions was unauthorized and outside the scope of his/her work the employer still must stand liability, situations like these happen often in the medical profession where patients are injured at the hands of unauthorized personnel and the employer becomes liable in a lawsuit. When the employee causes injury to a third party even it is unauthorized I believe that it is fair to have the employer stand liability however as I said before I do not agree with application of this doctrine in the cases where the action that injured the third party was reasonably taken upon the employee without authorization and outside their scope of their