Final Flashcards
Agency Rule
The fiduciary relationship where the P manifests CONSENT that the A shall act on the P’s BEHALF, subject to the P’s CONTROL, and the A manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act.
On Behalf Of Element
- Acting PRIMARILY for P’s benefit
- Does not require success in accomplishing the task
- Not simply offering help or making a suggestion
Control Element
Can be physical control or simply control over the goals of the relationship (dissent in US v Bonds)
Agency v. Buyer-Seller
Hunter Mining Lab v. MAI Key = level of control -title passage -price v. proceeds -when P gets paid (on delivery or sale to consumer)
Agency v. Creditor-Debtor
Gay Jenson Farms v. Cargill
Look at totality of the circumstances - did creditor do way more than a normal creditor does?
Agency v. Trustee
- Trustee is not subject to control of beneficiary
- Trust may be created w/o consent of beneficiary/trustee
- Trust cannot usually be terminated at will
Agency v. Escrow
ESCROW REQUIRES THREE PARTY AGREEMENT
But an A acting on behalf of one person may be held liable to a 3rd party for failure to perform a K intended to benefit that 3rd person
Dual Agency Rule
A cannot act adversely to P w/o P’s consent
Thayer v. Pacific Railway
Employee of ∆ can become TEMPORARILY and INSTANTANEOUSLY the A of π for the limited purpose of a task
Ambiguous P - ON BEHALF OF TEST
Kilbourn v. Henderson
Consultant is acting on behalf of party with whom her interests were aligned at the time of the act in question
Ambiguous P - CONTROL APPROACH
Norby v. Bankers Life
P is whichever entity dictates the terms of the relationship
Ambiguous P - GENERAL EMPLOYMENT APPROACH
- Continuity of employment
- Length of time
- Number of transactions
Ambiguous P - EQUITY APPROACH
Between two innocents, put burden on the party who put the A in the position to do the harm
Duties P owes to A
- Indemnification
- Compensation
- Care
Duty to Indemnify (P to A)
Admiral Oriental Line v. U.S.
Venture is P, profits will be his, so should be the expenses
Duty to Compensate (P to A)
Objective test: is there a reasonable expectation of P to pay and of A to be paid?
If yes, quantum meruit
Duty of Care (P to A)
Provide safe working conditions for A to complete his duties without undue harm
Duties A owes to P
- good conduct & to obey
- indemnify for loss caused by misconduct
- account
- care
- disclosure
- loyalty
Duty of Good Conduct and to Obey (A to P)
- Don’t purposefully bring P into disrepute
- Obey reasonable instructions to perform goal
Duty to Indemnify for Loss Caused by Misconduct (A to P)
Where A negligently damages property, exceeds auth’y, negligently or fraudulently causes P to be liable to 3rd person, or violates duty of loyalty
Duty to Account (A to P)
If A is somehow in charge of funds or property, A has a duty to keep track and show P
Duty of Care (A to P)
- Duty to conduct the affairs of P w/ a certain level of diligence, skill, and competence
- If you claim to have a higher level of skill/expertise, you will be held to that heightened level
Duty to Disclose (A to P)
Provide full, frank, fair disclosure of all material info
–reasonable person would attach importance to its existence or non-existence in making his decision in the transaction in question
Duty of Loyalty (A to P)
- Scope varies w/ position and nature of violation*
- Profit
- Confidential info
- Competition
- Self-dealing
Post-Termination Competition
A is allowed to compete fairly, but can’t use or disclose trade secrets to compete w/ or injure P
Covenants Not to Compete
- geographical extent
- duration
- nature of duties (training, skill)
- nature of employer interest sough to be protected (trade secrets, goodwill)
Servant v. Independent Contractor
- Extent of control over details**
- Distinct occupation or business
- Kind of occupation (usually supervised or independent)
- Skill required
- Who supplies tools or instrumentalities?
- Length of time
- Method of payment
- Part of employer’s regular business
- Parties’ intent to create relationship
- Whether P is or is not in businss
Exceptions to Independent Contractor Defense
1) Inherently dangerous activity – work which, in its nature, will create some peculiar risk of injury to others unless special precautions are taken
2) Negligent failure to select a competent contractor
3) Non-delegable duty
Borrowed Servant - ON BEHALF OF TEST
General employer remains liable as long as the employee is furthering his business unless control has been completely surrendered
Borrowed Servant - GENERAL CONTROL TEST
- General employer can substitute another servant
- Length of new employment is short
- Servant has specialized skill
- GE rents out machine and servant to operate it
Borrowed Servant - ON THE SPOT CONTROL TEST
Employer w/ control over the specific act giving rise to the cause of action was P
Frolic v. Detour
- General kind of conduct he’s employed to perform
- W/in auth’d time and space limits
- Motivated at least in part by the purpose of serving employer’s interest
- If intentional force is used by A, that use of force is not unexpected by P
“Since You’re Going Anyway” Cases
Trip is not w/in the scope of employment if the employee would have continued the trip even if the business purpose was cancelled
Re-Entry After Frolic
- Fiocco = when the dominant purpose is the performance of the master’s business
- R(2)§237 = servant does not re-enter until reasonably near auth’d time and space limits AND is acting w/ the intention of serving master’s business
Intentional Torts - Motive Test
Employer can be held liable if the intentional tort is during the course of employment AND in furtherance of a purpose to serve the employer
Intentional Torts - Foreseeability Test
Employer can be held liable if RISK is foreseeable and characteristic of this employment