Agency Partnerships LLCs Flashcards
What are the 3 hallmarks of an agency relationhip?
1) Fiduciary relationship (on behalf of)
2) resulting from manifestation of consent by P & A
3) where the agent acts under the control of the principal
Who must consent to forming an agency relationship?
How can consent be given?
The principal and the agent
Consent can be given expressly or by implication from the parties conduct
What is meant by the “on behalf of” requirement of agency?
The agent must be acting on behalf of the principal and not some third party or themselves. Acting as a fiduciary for the principal
What is meant by the “control” requirement of agency?
Agent must be under the control of the principal, but the leash can be loose on the details. Degree of control can be low (e.g. specifying ends and leaving the means to the agent)
Does an agency relationship have to satisfy all of the formalties of a contract?
No
What level of capacity is required of a principal? an agent?
Prncipal must have the capacity necessary to contract (so minors and incompetents can’t engage an agent)
Agent only has to have minimal capacity which is an even lower bar than contractual capacity (can be a minor or incompetent)
Is a writing required to create an agency relationship?
No, unless the agent will enter into contracts subject to the SoF (“Equal Dignities Rule”) or the agency contract itself is subject to Sof
Is consideration required to form an agency relationship?
NO NO NO
What are the methods of creating an agency relationship?
By act of the parties (actual authority, apparent authority, ratification)
OR
Operation of law including:
estoppel- reliance on the principal’s communication (similar to apparent auth)
Statute
What are the agent’s duties to the principal?
~FIDUCIARY DUTIES~
1) Duty of Care
2) Duty of Loyalty
3) Duty to obey lawful instructions
4) Duty of reasonable care (including to disclose all relevant info)
What is required of an agent under the duty of care?
Reasonable care is the baseline but is adjusted upward for any special skills. What is reasonable is partially a function if if agent is paid (less effort requried if unpaid)]
What is required of an agent under the duty of loyalty?
DoL includes:
absolute loyalty to principal within the subject matter of the agency -can’t act to benefit anyone other than the principal
What is the remedy of a DoL violation by an agent where the agent profits?
The principal can sue for damages caused by the breach and disgorgement of profits
What is required of an agent under the duty of obedience? What remedy is available?
Must obey all legal instructions - similar to DoL.
Principal can sue agetn for any loss that the principal suffers from the disobedience
What kind of remedies can a principal seek for a breach of fiduciary duty?
Can seek damages, can seek disgorgement of profits (even if no damages sustained), can seek constructive trust (to get fruits of unjust enrichment back) or any other kind of remedy you can dream up - court has wide discretion
What is a sub agent?
Is an agent liable for acts of the subagent?
To whom does the subagent owe fiduciary duties
Person appointed by an agent to perform certain acts that the agent is supposed to perform for their principal.Not to be confused with a co-agent which is another agent of the principal.
Yes, agent is absolutely liable for acts of sub agent
If the principal authorized agent to engage subagent, subagent owes duties directly to principal. If agent was not authorized to engage subagent, subagent owes fiduciary duties to agent only
What are the principal’s duties to an agent?
NOT FIDUCIARY, but in addition to any contractual duties, owes a duty to…
- reasonably compensate (if contract silent)
- reimburse for expenses
- indemnify the agent
- cooperate with agent/not interfere with perf of duties
Does a principal owe a duty to reasonably compnste a sub agent?
No, EVEN IF the agent had authority to hire a subagent
What remedies can an agent seek for a principal’s violation of duties owed to agent?
Contract remedies
What is the duty owed by the principal in a regular real estate contract to their real estate agent?
Agent is entitled to compensation when they deliver a willing/able buyer and if the seller/principal refuses an offer that was within the terms agreed to between seller/principal and real estate agent, the seller/principal will be breaching a duty owed to the agent and seller will owe agent the agreed compensation
When can an agent bind their principal?
Actual authority (express or implied), apparent authority, or ratification
Is it possible to be partially authorized to enter into a contract?
Step 1: Start with Principal’s manifestation (words or conduct)
Step 2: If the principal’s words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the agent’s position to believe they had authority, they have actual authority
Can be given expressly (orally or writing) Express authority is effective even if given mistakenly or because of misrep.
Can implied if a reasonable person in the agent’s position would believe an action was authorization (including incidential to express authority, custom, prior acquiescence, emergency)
NO - all or nothing
At what moment is it important for an agent to have authority for purposes of binding a principal to a contract?
A the moment the agent enters into the contract
When is actual authority terminated?
~ When the agent has notice of the principal’s death
- when the authority expires under its own terms
- after a reasonable time or change in circumstances
- when agent breaches fiduciary duty or the agency is terminated
When is an actual authority of an agent irrevocable?
When it was given to protect the agent or a third party’s rights and is supported by consideration. Can’t be terminated unilaterally or by operation of law (e.g. at death)
When does an agent have apparent authority to bind the principal?
Step 1: Start with Principal’s manifestation (words or conduct)
Step 2: If the principal’s words or conduct would lead a reasonable third party to believe the agent had authority, there is apparent authority
IN OTHER WORDS… Would the principal’s words or conduct lead a reasonable person to believe tha the agent has authority to bind the principal?
*But if the third party subjectively knew that the agent did not actually have authority, can’t have apparent authority
What is the key analytical difference between actual and apparent authority?
Actual authority is based on the effect of the principal’s manifestation on a reasonable agent.
Apparent authority is about the effect of the principal’s manifestation on a reasonable third party
When is apparent authority often at issue ?
When the agent exceeds their actual authority
- Principal previously permitted an agent to exceed the scope of their actual auth and knows the TP is aware of this = apparent auth
- Principal gives the agent a powerful title/position = apparent auth
When the agent has no actual authority at all
- if principal does nothing and agent/someone else makes things up to fool TP = NO apparent auth
- if principal does nothing and is aware that agent is making things up to fool TP = apparent auth
- lingering apparent auth after actual auth ends
Which is more difficult to terminate - actual or apparent authority?
It is more difficult to terminate apparent authority - might need to give notice to third parties to destroy their reasonable belief of auth
Does death terminate apparent authority?
No
What is inherent authority?
It is a (less important) type of authority that binds a principal even if there is no actual or apparent authority. The court invents this where it would prefer to protect an innocent third party rather than a principal who gave the agent some authority. Examples are respondeat superior and conduct similar to the conduct authorized
What are acts of ratification?
————–
What are the 3 requirements of a ratifying act?
Principal can ratify expressly or impliedly (by accepting benefits, silence in face of duty to disaffirm, or suing on the contract)
————
1) Principal must know or have reason to know of all material facts about the contract
2) must accept the ENTIRE transaction
3) principal must have capacity (competent and legal age)
What is meant by the statement that “Ratification cannot alter the rights of intervening third parties.”?
If an agent acts without authority in selling X to A and principal separately sells X (without learning of the initia sale), Principal cannot later ratify the earlier sale because that would affect A’s rights in X (an intervening third party).
The ship sails on ratification when a later third party’s interest would be upset by the ratification.
What kinds of actions/contracts can a principal NOT later ratify? --------- Which of the following can ratify… - undisclosed principal - disclosed principal - unidentified principal
Principal cannot ratify if:
1) performance was illegal at the time of the ratification
2) the third party has withdrawn
3) there has been a material change in circumstances
——–
- Undisclosed principal (existence and identity withheld from TP) can NOT ratify
- Disclosed principal (existence and identity known to TP) CAN ratify
- unidentified principal (existence but not identity known to TP) CAN ratify
^This is because the agent has to purport to be acting on behalf of the principal - But all principals can ratify under the 3rd Restatement
If principal is disclosed, Is an agent personaly liable for a contract entered into for the principal?
“Disclosed Principal Situation” If actual authority, apparent authority, or ratification, then principal is liable and the agent is NOT liable
Agreement of the contracting parties trumps these defaults
If undisclosed or unidentified principal, Is an agent personaly liable for a contract entered into for the principal?
If agent had authority to bind principal, third party gets to choose if they want to hold EITHER the principal or agent liable on the contract
If agent enters into a contract without actual or apparent authority and no ratification such that the principal is not bound, what can the third party do?
Sue the agent for damages for breaching the implied “warranty of authority”
When the principal is disclosed to the third party and the agent has authority to bind principal, who can enforce the contract - principal or agent? What if principal is unidentified or undisclosed?
If disclosed = Principal ONLY
If unidentified or undisclosed = Principal OR Agent (for the benefit of principal)
*but principal cannot enforce if there has been a fraudulent misrep of the principal’s identity or unforeseen increased burden to the TP by the fact that performance is due to principal and not agent
What are the two theories of vicarious liability for holding a principal iable for the torts of an agent? What’s the result?
When can a principal be directly liable a tort?
1) Respondeat superior
2) Apparent authority
The result is joint and several liability of principal and agent
Principal can be directly liable for their own negligence in hiring, retaining, or supervising the agent, OR if they gave actual authority to commit the tort or ratified it OR independent contractor w/nondelagable duty, untrahazardous activity, chose bad contractor
How can a principal be liable for actions of an independent contractor?
Principal is directly liable (not vicarious) for contractors involved in inherently dangerous activities, duties that are nondelagable, or if they knowlingly selected an incompetent contractor
What’s the difference in an employee and independent contractor? What’s the important similarity?
Employer controls the manner an employee’s work is performed - contractor gets to decide how the work is performed (look for who supplies the tools, time or goal basis of comp, labeling by the parties, centrality of function to the business) The analysis is what’s important not the conclusion.
- They are both agents (just different types)
How do you determine if an employee was acting within their scope of employment when they committed a tort?
3 Questions to Determine Scope of Employment
1) Was the conduct “of the kind” the agent was hired to perform?
- prohibition by principal does not necessariy take out of scope of emp
2) Did the tort occur “on the job” (within time and space limits of employment)?
- detour = small deviation = employer liable
- frolic = major deviation = employer not liable
3) Was the conduct motivated at least in part by desire to benefit the principal?
Are intentional torts ever within the scope of the agent’s employment?
General rule is intentional torts are outside of scope of employment
BUT intentional torts are in scope of employment if conduct is:
- natural incident of employee’s duties (where force is authorized or work is hostile)
- where employee is promoting the employer’s business/serving employer
- tort authorized or ratified by employer
If one employer loans an employee to another, which employer is liable for torts committed by that employee in the loaned role?
Whiever employer has primary right of control over the employee
Is the principal liable for torts committed by subagents?
If principal authorized the engagement of subagents, then yes. If the principal had not authorized the engagement of subagents, then no.
What is employer-employee by estoppel?
If a principal creates the impression that an agent is an employee and a third party relies on that impression, the principal is estopped from denying that relationship and is liable under respondeat superior
When is a principal vicariously liable for agents under an apparent authority theory?
Principal is vicariously liable where the agent appears to deal on behalf of the principal and that apparent authority enables the agent to either commit a tort or conceal its commission.
What are the elements that create a partnership?
1) An association of 2 or more persons (people or any type of entity)
2) to carry on as co-owners
3) a business for profit
*regardless of subjective intent
Does subjective intent to form a partnership matter?
No - what matters is the subjective intent to carry on as co-owners a business for profit.
Even if the parties sign a statement that they are NOT partners, it makes no difference
What factors are considered when deciding if a partnership exists? What are these factors trying to triangulate?
The factors are aimed at if 2 or more parties intended to carry on as co-owners a business for profit. Factors include:
- Most important factor: Sharing of profits raises presumption of partnership (presumption unless received under other circumstances)
- Right to participate in control of business (even if unexercised)
- Property held in joint tenancy/in common
- Parties label it as a partnership
- the venture undertaken by the parties requires extensive activity
Does sharing revenues get to a presumption of partnership?
Sharing of profits raises presumption of partnership unless the share was received as payment of a debt UNLESS the share of the profits was received as payment of a debt, wages/comp for services, rent, interest, or for sale of goodwill of a business - a real partner doesn’t have a cap/timelin on when they stop getting profits.
Splitting Revenues does not get the presumption of partnership
Is a writing required to create a partnership?
No unless the partners wish their partnership agreement to be binding for >1 year, then SoF requires it
Is there a duty to deny partnership with another who is held out by another as a partner?
———
If P1 holds out A as their partner, can A bind P1? What about other partners of P1?
No duty to deny - won’t become a partner unless they consent/acquiesce to the holding out
———
A can bind P1 (as P1’s agent) and can bind only those partners of P1 that know of the holding out
What is the effect of a partnership agreement?
What form can a partnership agreement take?
A partnership agreement overrides the statutory defaults of partnership law
The partnership agreement can take any form (oral, written, or implied from conduct)
Is a partnership a legal entity?
Yes - a partnership can own property, can sue or be sued in its own name