BUSINESSLAW CHAPTER 38 - Business Law

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MARCH 2009 BUSINESS LAW CHAPTER 38 DEBRA BARONE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS 1. The court found in favor of Rothschild. Since the contracts were made between April and June and Pawlus did not state that he was agent for the corporation until October, he is liable. 2. 3. The justification is that the business pays for the harm caused in doing business; the employer needs to be more careful on hiring employees if they are to make the employees responsible for the employer’s actions, be able to get liability insurance. 4. The court found in favor of Baumann. Since she acted as an agent for her mother, she has no liability for the contract with the hospital. 5. No. Mills can not be held vicariously liable. Since S&S was NOT an employee of Mills, but rather an independent contractor, they are liable. The statement that running the mower is a 2-person job made no sense to me. Only one person can run a mower at a time. 6.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

BUSINESSLAW CHAPTER 38 - Business Law

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online