Assignment request: You will need to write a two-page memo

  

Assignment request:

You will need to write a two-page memo and post to your folder, on 1) how a court would decide the case and the reasoning why. Again, this is not a cut and paste exercise from the Carz report memo as how a court would look at the two sides’ arguments would be a different approach from the memo’s approach; and 2) pick two colleagues’ posts and respond to them in the memo, making a note to whom you are responding. This memo must include appropriate references to the learning resources per the original assignment instructions.

Colleagues’ Post to respond to:

1. Carz Bazaar Romero

Bettie Romero posted Oct 24, 2021 10:24 PM

The likely outcome of this case will be in favor of the plaintiff because Carz Bazaar is responsible for their employee Charles Wilson and his actions while on duty due to an Agency relationship.
    An agency relationship is based on principal and agent. When a principal (Caarz Bazaar) gives permission or authorization to an agent to act on their behalf, this makes the principal responsible for the actions taken by the agent (UMGC, Agency and Liability, 2021). Therefore, the principal (Caarz Bazaar) and the agent being (Charles Wilson) is responsible for all duties based on instruction performed by Charles. Thus, making Caarz Bazaar responsible for Charles taking the vehicle out with Gina Mitchell’s permission. Agents fall under three different categories which are: limited agents, general agents, and independent contractors. A limited agent has a particular purpose and limited authority to act under the principal, while a general agent is not limited to any particular purpose. As a result, the agent has more broad authority and can act on behalf of his principal’s authority. As for the independent contractor is hired to perform duties under the principal. However, the independent contractor is not under the direct control of the supervisor. Therefore, the agent does not represent the principal based on any outside services of the contract (UMGC, Agency and Liability, 2021).
    Charles is considered a general agent who has broad authority under Caarz Bazaar and can act on behalf of the company. Therefore, Caaz Bazaar would be responsible for Charles’s mistake of the vehicle accident regarding the plaintiffs’ injuries (UMGC, Carz Bazaar, 2021). 

2. Carz Bazaar – Leon Guerrero

Desiree Leon Guerrero posted Oct 23, 2021 5:12 AM

I think that a judge would rule in favor of the defendant, Carz Bazaar if this case were to go to court.

Charles Wilson, the agent, and the principal, Carz Bazaar, entered into an express agreement when they hired him to perform several duties (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2021, para. 1). However, it is true that as an employee, Wilson is a general agent of the company (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2021, Employee vs. Independent Contractor section, para. 1). As a general agent, Wilson has broad authority to act on behalf of the company. The company would generally be required to indemnify him for any liabilities incurred in the performance of his duties. However, because Wilson was disobedient, therefore, violating his duties as an agent of the company (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2021, Duties of an Agent, para. 1), he effectively relieved Carz Bazaar of liability for his tort (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2021, Frolic and Detour section, para. 2)

He was deviating from his duties as an employee when he used a company vehicle to conduct an unauthorized personal errand. Carz Bazaar could argue that Wilson was acting outside the scope of his employment and for his self-benefit. They could also say that Wilson was on frolic and detour and no longer acting for the company (University of Maryland Global Campus, 2021, Frolic and Detour, para. 1).

Learning resources for reference and quotes are attached below: