Homework 8:31
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Western Governors University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
593
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
1
Uploaded by MagistratePuppyMaster1015
Homework 8/31
Page 83:
1.
If Barry and Leacy were independent contractors, they outcome of the case most likely would have come out differently. Because they are not employees, the principal does not control or has the right to control the manner and means of the agent’s performance of work. As an independent contractor the agent is engaged in a distinct occupation or business, the work is done without supervision, the agent supplies the tools, the agent is paid by the job, the work is not part of the principals regular business,
and there is no belief that they are creating an employment relationship. IF this is true, the court’s reasoning would not be the same. As independent contractors, they do not have to inform the company that they are forming a rival company because they are already a different company, they have no fiduciary duty to Foodcomm. They will have supplied their own tools and not Foodcomm’s. And they would be a different company and unable to solicit fellow employees to join their business because they are not fellow
employees.
2.
First thing that Leacy should have done was set realistic expectations that Empire was not feeling better about their relationship with Foodcomm. This would set realistic expectations for Foodcomm. Next, they should have used their own computers to put together the business plan, thus not relying on their Foodcomm’s equipment. Next, they
should have quit their jobs before trying to get empires business. Thus, the duty to refrain from competing does not apply.
Tort Liability problems:
1.
First Baker is considered an employee of Chez Slop. An employee is someone performing work assigned by an employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employers control (7.07(2)). Baker is assigned to cook. Chez is vicariously liable for a tort committed by Baker because Baker is an employee and he committed the tort while
acting within the scope of employment. Both Chez and Baker could be held liable.
2.
Baker is considered an employee of Chez Slop. An employee is someone performing work assigned by an employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employers control (7.07(2)). However, Baker was not acting within the scope of employment, Chez is most likely not liable for Baker’s intentional Tort that he committed while on a break. Baker is liable for his intentional tort because he did it.
3.
There is no employment relationship here. You have no control on how the repair shop repairs your lawn mower (7.07(3)). The repair shop was hired as an independent contractor, and not as an employee. Because they are not an employee you are not vicariously liable for the injury. The principal is only liable for a tort committed by an agent if the agent is an employee acting within the scope of employment.
Discover more documents: Sign up today!
Unlock a world of knowledge! Explore tailored content for a richer learning experience. Here's what you'll get:
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help