Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page 2 of 7
SUB ISSUE: What authority does Lucille hold as an agent? RULE: Actual authority is defined by R3d 3.01 as a principals manifestation to agent that is reasonably understood by the agent t hat expresses principals assent that the agent take action on the principals behalf. [USE R2d Agency Section 26] ADD IMPLIED AUTHORITY FROM R2d AGENCY R2d 8 and R3d 2.03 test for apparent authority requires manifestation from principal; reaching 3 party LEADING TO A REASONABLE BELIEF BY THIRD PARTY THAT AGENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR PRINCIPAL. R2d 8A: The test for inherent authority is if the act is generally done by people in that position with those responsibilities, or would a 3 party have reason to know that Lucille was not allowed to enter the contract. ANALYSIS: -actual authority (express or implied): ANALYZE WHETHER LUCILLE HAD ACTUAL EXPRESS AUTHORITY SHE DID NOT BECAUSE SHE ACTED CONTRARY TO INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL CCC AND SHE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT AUTHORITY. Possibly implied because it fills in gaps in her job duties but she acted in direct opposition to the instructions she was given. Therefore, actual IMPLIED authority cant be relied on. -apparent authority When Lucille was contacted by Sam, she had a title within CCC; it could also be manifested if Sam communicated with someone in a position with a title from CCC that shows to the community or caller that they represent CCC. ANALYZE OTHER PARTS OF THE TEST: IT REACHED THE THIRD PARTY SAM AND IT WAS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE WITH THE TITLE CEO COULD TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF CCC
rd rd
Page 3 of 7
. -inherent authority: a person with Lucilles title would have been assumed under the facts to hold the responsibility and ability to act. STATE WHY IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CUSTOMARY FOR CEO TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION TO CONDUCT ALL BUSINESS MATTERS FOR CCC. CONCLUSION: Sam can bind CCC into the contract through Apparent and Inherent authority on Lucille. ISSUE #2: Whether Jimmy holds an agency relationship with CCC to bind them to the contract with ATC? RULE: INSTEAD OF REPEATING THE RULE YOU CAN SAY SEE RULE SECTION ABOVE UNDER ISSUE #1 SEE COMMENTS ABOVE UNDER RULE SECTION. As R2d 1 requires: manifestation of consent by one person (principal) to another; that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control; and consent by the other (agent) to so act. Moreover, R2d 1.01 states that agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (principal) manifests assent to another person (agent) that the agent shall act on the principals behalf and subject to his control, and the agent manifests assent or othe rwise consents to so act. ANALYSIS: Lucille (agent) delegated a duty EXPRESSLY ALLOWED BY THE BOARD RESOLUTION for contracting for cement trucks to Sam, who thus was an agent of CCC. In many ways, Lucille became the principal and delegated a specific job to Jimmy who became an agent. CCC WAS THE PRINCIPAL, LUCILLE WAS AN AGENT AND JIMMY WAS A SUBAGENT. CONCLUSION: Jimmy is an agent A SUBAGENT OF CCC, definitely of CCC, possibly through Lucille. SUB-ISSUE: What authority does Jimmy hold as an agent? RULE: INSTEAD OF REPEATING THE RULE YOU CAN SAY SEE RULE SECTION ABOVE UNDER ISSUE #1 SEE COMMENTS ABOVE UNDER RULE SECTION. Actual authority is defined by R3d 3.01 as a principals manifestation to agent that is reasonably understood by the agent t hat expresses principals assent that the agent take action on the principals behalf. R2d 8 and R3d 2.03 test for apparent authority requires manifestation from principal; reaching 3 party. R2d 8A: The test for inherent authority is if the act is generally done by people in that position with those responsibilities, or would a 3 party have reason to know that Jimmy was not allowed to enter the contract. ANALYSIS: -actual authority: Jimmy acted expressly in opposition of direction given by Lucille. He cannot have actual authority EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LUCILLES INSTRUCTIONS AND CANNOT IMPLY AUTHOR ITY OUTSIDE SCOPE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. -apparent authority: Possibly. Manifestation from the principal would be the answer by the secretary THAT REACHED THIRD PARTY ATC AND THAT LED TO THIRD PART ATC REASONABLE BELIEF IN JIMMYS AUTHORITY TO BIND CCC IN CONTRACT. -inherent authority: Jimmy is not a general agent, he was authorized for one specific job. INHERENT AUTHORITY APPLIES TO GENERAL AGENTS AND GENERAL MANAGERS AND HE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. MIGHT WANT TO SET FORTH THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL AGENT FOR JIMMY HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE ONE SPECIFIC ACTION ON BEHALF OF CCC AND DID NOT HAVE GENERAL AUTHORITY TO BIND CCC. CONCLUSION:
rd rd
Page 4 of 7
ATC can bind CCC with apparent authority most likely. MIGHT ALSO WANT TO CONSIDER RATIFICATION AND ESTOPPEL.
Page 5 of 7
SUB ISSUE: What authority does Lucille hold as an agent? RULE: Actual authority is defined by R3d 3.01 as a principals manifestation to agent that is reasonably understood by the agent that expresses principals assent that the agent take action on the principals behalf. [USE R2d Agency Section 26] ADD IMPLIED AUTHORITY FROM R2d AGENCY R2d 8 and R3d 2.03 test for apparent authority requires manifestation from principal; reaching 3 party LEADING TO A REASONABLE BELIEF BY THIRD PARTY THAT AGENT WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT FOR PRINCIPAL. R2d 8A: The test for inherent authority is if the act is generally done by people in that position with those responsibilities, or would a 3 party have reason to know that Lucille was not allowed to enter the contract. ANALYSIS: -actual authority (express or implied): ANALYZE WHETHER LUCILLE HAD ACTUAL EXPRESS AUTHORITY SHE DID NOT BECAUSE SHE ACTED CONTRARY TO INSTRUCTIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL CCC AND SHE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED SHE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THAT AUTHORITY. Possibly implied because it fills in gaps in her job duties but she acted in direct opposition to the instructions she was given. Therefore, actual IMPLIED authority cant be relied on. -apparent authority
rd rd
Page 6 of 7
When Lucille was contacted by Sam, she had a title within CCC; it could also be manifested if Sam communicated with someone in a position with a title from CCC that shows to the community or caller that they represent CCC. ANALYZE OTHER PARTS OF THE TEST: IT REACHED THE THIRD PARTY SAM AND IT WAS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE SOMEONE WITH THE TITLE CEO COULD TAKE ACTION ON BEHALF OF CCC . -inherent authority: a person with Lucilles title would have been assumed under the facts to hold the responsibility and ability to act. STATE WHY IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CUSTOMARY FOR CEO TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO TAKE ACTION TO CONDUCT ALL BUSINESS MATTERS FOR CCC. CONCLUSION: Sam can bind CCC into the contract through Apparent and Inherent authority on Lucille. ISSUE #2: Whether Jimmy holds an agency relationship with CCC to bind them to the contract with ATC? RULE: INSTEAD OF REPEATING THE RULE YOU CAN SAY SEE RULE SECTION ABOVE UNDER ISSUE #1 SEE COMMENTS ABOVE UNDER RULE SECTION. As R2d 1 requires: manifestation of consent by one person (principal) to another; that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control; and consent by the other (agent) to so act. Moreover, R2d 1.01 states that agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (principal) manifests assent to another person (agent) that the agent shall act on the principals behalf and subject to his control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents to so act. ANALYSIS: Lucille (agent) delegated a duty EXPRESSLY ALLOWED BY THE BOARD RESOLUTION for contracting for cement trucks to Sam, who thus was an agent of CCC. In many ways, Lucille became the principal and delegated a specific job to Jimmy who became an agent. CCC WAS THE PRINCIPAL, LUCILLE WAS AN AGENT AND JIMMY WAS A SUBAGENT. CONCLUSION: Jimmy is an agent A SUBAGENT OF CCC, definitely of CCC, possibly through Lucille. SUB-ISSUE: What authority does Jimmy hold as an agent? RULE: INSTEAD OF REPEATING THE RULE YOU CAN SAY SEE RULE SECTION ABOVE UNDER ISSUE #1 SEE COMMENTS ABOVE UNDER RULE SECTION. Actual authority is defined by R3d 3.01 as a principals manifestation to agent that is reasonably understood by the agent that expresses principals assent that the agent take action on the principals behalf. R2d 8 and R3d 2.03 test for apparent authority requires manifestation from principal; reaching 3 party. R2d 8A: The test for inherent authority is if the act is generally done by people in that position with those responsibilities, or would a 3 party have reason to know that Jimmy was not allowed to enter the contract.
rd rd
ANALYSIS: -actual authority: Jimmy acted expressly in opposition of direction given by Lucille. He cannot have actual authority EXPRESS OR IMPLIED BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BELIEVED HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO ACT OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF LUCILLES INSTRUCTIONS AND CANNOT IMPLY AUTHORITY OUTSIDE SCOPE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. -apparent authority: Possibly. Manifestation from the principal would be the answer by the secretary THAT REACHED THIRD PARTY ATC AND THAT LED TO THIRD PART ATC REASONABLE BELIEF IN JIMMYS AUTHORITY TO BIND CCC IN CONTRACT. -inherent authority:
Page 7 of 7
Jimmy is not a general agent, he was authorized for one specific job. INHERENT AUTHORITY APPLIES TO GENERAL AGENTS AND GENERAL MANAGERS AND HE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THAT CATEGORY. MIGHT WANT TO SET FORTH THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL AGENT FOR JIMMY HE WAS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE ONE SPECIFIC ACTION ON BEHALF OF CCC AND DID NOT HAVE GENERAL AUTHORITY TO BIND CCC. CONCLUSION: ATC can bind CCC with apparent authority most likely. MIGHT ALSO WANT TO CONSIDER RATIFICATION AND ESTOPPEL.
*GUIDELINES FOR ANSWERING REVIEW QUESTIONS* Use IRAC and IRAC headings Set forth the issue and subissues. Recite relevant legal rules; here recite the tests for creation of agency relationship and each form of authority. Cite to authority (R2d Agency) or case law for each point of law. Analyze facts in light of each test. If a multipart test, show how each part is met. Reach a conclusion for each issue and subissue and set if forth.