[viii] agency.uslegal.com/duration-and-termination-of-agency/. The Southern District of Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit, which apply Mississippi law, have determined that sexual misconduct is outside the course and scope of employment. There is no doubt that Constable James was employed when he first arrested Cockrell on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. However, when Constable James stepped away from his employment for personal reasons, he no longer acted to promote the interests of his employer. Therefore, the district cannot be held liable. for Constable James` misconduct that occurred outside the course and scope of his employment. [Carey was convicted of rape and sent to prison. The court found that George`s was duly fired because Pep Line, Carey`s employer, was an independent contractor over whom George`s had no control.] The dispute arose from the very transaction that Carey had brought to the premises and, according to the plaintiff, from the employer`s instruction to obtain cash only before delivery. Finally, if one of the parties acts in a manner inconsistent with the continuation of the Agency, it will be terminated, although this may of course lead to rights of action for breach of contract. With respect to ordinary termination, the relationship ends when an agency is designated for a particular transaction, when that transaction is completed. If it is for a certain period of time, it will stop at the end of that period.
Most agencies are under contract, but the agency can also arise implicitly or apparently. Con appoints George, who acts as his agent for two weeks. George agrees to act without payment. He asks George to collect rent from his tenants every Friday morning and pay the rent to the nearby bank. During the second week, George collects the rent, but is unable to transfer it. On the way back, he leaves him on the bus and he is never found. Can Con take action against George for violating his agency obligations? As these questions suggest, agency law often involves three parties – the principal, the agent and a third party. There are therefore three different relationships: between customer and representative, between customer and third party, and between representative and third party. These relationships can be summarized in a simple diagram (see Figure 11.1 “Agency Relationships”). If the Agent has real or apparent authority, the Agent will not be responsible for actions taken under these powers, as long as the Agency Relationship and the Client Identity have been disclosed. However, if the agency is not or only partially disclosed, the agent and the client are liable. If the client is not bound because the contractor has no real or obvious authority, the alleged representative is liable to the third party for the breach of the implied warranty of authority.
An agent is a person who acts on behalf of and on behalf of others after receiving a certain level of authority and being expected to do so. Most organized human activities – and virtually all commercial activities – are carried out through agencies. No business would be possible, even in theory, without such a concept. For example, we could say, “General Motors builds cars in China,” but we can`t shake hands with General Motors. “The general,” as they say, exists and functions through agents. Similarly, partnerships and other commercial organizations rely heavily on agents to manage their activities. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the agency is the cornerstone of the organization of the company. In a partnership, each partner is a general representative, while under corporate law, officers and all employees are representatives of the company.
In this case, there were indications of the following various circumstances: the title of Brown`s executive vice president; the location of his office vis-à-vis the President; frequent communications with the President; the long course of business and negotiations; encouraging the president in Kanavos to deal with Brown; Brown`s earlier amendment of the agreement on behalf of the bank on important issues, namely the price to be paid by the bank for the shares and the redemption price; the size of the bank (fourteen or fifteen branches in addition to the head office); the secondary and non-fundamental nature of the change in the terms of the agreement, which is now rejected by the bank, measured in relation to the context of the entire transaction; and Brown`s vast operational authority. all this together would support a determination of apparent authority. If a director, as in this case, is allowed to perform general executive functions, “the public expects the company to be bound by commitments made on its behalf by those who claim to have the power to consent and who appear to have them convincingly.” [Quote] Of course, this principle does not apply if, in the commercial context, the requirement of a special power of attorney is presumed, for example the sale of .B significant asset by a company or a transaction which, by its very nature, obliges the company to have an obligation outside its normal activity. The amending agreement of 16 July 1976 signed by Brown should have been admitted as evidence and a judgment should not have been rendered. In such a case, the distributor could have made a significant investment in establishing or promoting the distribution partnership. Therefore, the contract can only be terminated after the expiry of a reasonable period of time and a reasonable period of notice. A mediation contract to be performed to the satisfaction of the customer can in principle be terminated by the customer at will. Similarly, a power of attorney that is merely an agent may be revoked at any time with or without giving reasons.
Court decisions over the past forty years have evolved to a different standard of predictability of officer behaviour. According to this standard, an employer may be held liable for the conduct of its employee, even if it is devoted exclusively to the employee`s own ends, as long as it was foreseeable that the representative could act as he did. This is the “risk zone” test. The employer is in the risk zone for the enforcement agent`s liability if the employee is where he or she is supposed to be and is doing more or less what he or she is supposed to be doing, and the incident arose from the employee`s pursuit of the employer`s interests (again more or less). That is, the employer is in the risk area if the staff member is in the place where it would be reasonable to verify whether the master should send a search team to find a missing worker. See Section 4, Cockrell v. Pearl River Valley Water Supply Dist. Even if the contractor did not have an actual power of attorney and there was no obvious power of attorney on which the third party could rely, the client can still be held liable if they ratify or accept the representative`s actions before the third party withdraws from the contract.
Ratification usually refers to the time of the enterprise and then creates authority as if it had been originally established. Ratification is a voluntary act of the contracting authority. In view of the results of actions allegedly carried out in his name, but without authorization and without fault on his part, he may affirm or deny them at will. For ratification, the principal may inform the person concerned or demonstrate by his conduct that he is willing to accept the results as if the act had been approved […].
