Saylor url saylororg page 629 there are several other

This preview shows page 4 - 7 out of 7 pages.

course, even information such as overheard calls. Saylor URL: Saylor.org page 629There are several other duties listed for agents, but they are for all agents, and certain employees can also be held to those duties. They are not considered to be fiduciary duties, so I did not list them.
Chapter 191.Could express authority be established by silence on the part of the principal?No, express authority is the strongest form of authority and is expressly granted often in writing.2.Why is the concept of implied authority very important in business situations?It would be impossible to lay out in detail every action an agent is authorized to take on behalf of the principal. To try would be so impractical it would make the use of agents worthless. “ The general rule is that the agent has implied or ‘incidental’ authority to perform acts incidental to or reasonably necessary to carry out the transaction. Thus if a principal instructs her agent to ‘deposit a check in the bank today,’ the agent has authority to drive to the bank unless the principal specifically prohibits the agent from doing so.”Saylor URL: Saylor.org page 6603.What is the difference between direct and vicarious employer tort liability?Direct liability is a common-law principle that you cannot avoid liability by having someone else commit an illegal act for you. When the principal directs the agent to commit a tort or knows that a tort will result if the agent follows his instructions, the principal is responsible. Saylor URL: Saylor.org page 664Vicarious liability uses the principle of respondeat superior or the master-servant doctrine, which holds that the principal is liable for acts the agent commits “in the scope of employment.” The principal is liable even if he hadno idea about the agent’s conduct and was in no way involved personally, and this can include things the agent was told expressly not to do.Saylor URL: Saylor.org page 665The significant difference is that in direct-liability, the principal’s own actions were the cause of the illegal act. In vicarious liability, it was the actions of the agent. The principal was not directly involved but is nonetheless responsible for unlawful acts committed by the agent if it took place “in the scope of employment.” Also, see the answer to the next question.
4.Under what circumstances will an employer be liable for intentional torts of the employee?“Today, liability for intentional torts is imputed to the principal if the agent is acting to further the principal’s business. See the very disturbing Lyon v. Carey. The general rule is that a principal is liable for torts only if the servant committed them ‘in the scope of employment.’ But determining what this means is not easy.”Saylor URL: Saylor.org page 667Pages 680 – 685, “Employer’s Liability for Employee’s Intentional Torts: Scope of Employment: Lyon v. Carey 533 F.2d 649 (Cir. Ct. App. DC 1976)” Saylor URL: Saylor.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture