Case Study: Schoenberger
SOLUTION TO PROBLEMS
6. It seems that, the principal is not liable to the customer for the value of the destroyed antique. This is because of the following reasons:
- The agent’s careless actions were not within the scope of their employment. If the agent acts negligently outside of their scope of employment with the principal, the principal is not liable for the damages occurred by the agent’s actions.
The agent has a specific job to do. He was to deliver goods to particular customer(s) for the principal. The agent took it upon himself to further his actions with the customer by helping bring the groceries inside and helping put them away which caused the antique to break.
Furthermore, the agent’s actions outside the scope of his employment …show more content…
Data Center. Zuchristian also verbally informed Schoenberger that the remuneration offered would be $19,800. However, the formal offer made by the placement department was $19,300. Since the salary offered in formal offer of employment differed from what Frank communicated during his third meeting, Schoenberger contacted Frank regarding this mismatch before accepting the formal offer. Upon this query, Frank made some internal enquiries and informed Schoenberger that the mismatch happened due to a clerical error. Furthermore, Frank also promised to get it adjusted to $19,800 in coming salary review and suggested Schoenberger to accept the formal offer. Upon Frank’s promise, Schoenberger accepted the formal offer of $19,300 with an expectation to get it revised to $19,800 in upcoming salary review. However, the salary adjustment didn’t actually happen. Due to this, Schoenberger resigned and filed a suit against C.T.A. to recover …show more content…
the ad placing activity was coordinated by a lady called Martha j. musil. advertisements were placed for April and June and there was a balance due against wrl advertising. a case was filed in august 2005, but soon after worrell filed for bankruptcy due to which the court put the case on stay under inactive docket. plain dealer asked the court to reactivate the case against musil only. the court agreed and heard both the parties, where musil showed forms that she was only working for worrell as agent. forms also showed that Ms. musil was only an employee and contact person and the bills were raised and sent in the name of wrl advertising only. the court ordered against musil and fined her with
6. It seems that, the principal is not liable to the customer for the value of the destroyed antique. This is because of the following reasons:
- The agent’s careless actions were not within the scope of their employment. If the agent acts negligently outside of their scope of employment with the principal, the principal is not liable for the damages occurred by the agent’s actions.
The agent has a specific job to do. He was to deliver goods to particular customer(s) for the principal. The agent took it upon himself to further his actions with the customer by helping bring the groceries inside and helping put them away which caused the antique to break.
Furthermore, the agent’s actions outside the scope of his employment …show more content…
Data Center. Zuchristian also verbally informed Schoenberger that the remuneration offered would be $19,800. However, the formal offer made by the placement department was $19,300. Since the salary offered in formal offer of employment differed from what Frank communicated during his third meeting, Schoenberger contacted Frank regarding this mismatch before accepting the formal offer. Upon this query, Frank made some internal enquiries and informed Schoenberger that the mismatch happened due to a clerical error. Furthermore, Frank also promised to get it adjusted to $19,800 in coming salary review and suggested Schoenberger to accept the formal offer. Upon Frank’s promise, Schoenberger accepted the formal offer of $19,300 with an expectation to get it revised to $19,800 in upcoming salary review. However, the salary adjustment didn’t actually happen. Due to this, Schoenberger resigned and filed a suit against C.T.A. to recover …show more content…
the ad placing activity was coordinated by a lady called Martha j. musil. advertisements were placed for April and June and there was a balance due against wrl advertising. a case was filed in august 2005, but soon after worrell filed for bankruptcy due to which the court put the case on stay under inactive docket. plain dealer asked the court to reactivate the case against musil only. the court agreed and heard both the parties, where musil showed forms that she was only working for worrell as agent. forms also showed that Ms. musil was only an employee and contact person and the bills were raised and sent in the name of wrl advertising only. the court ordered against musil and fined her with