How should I respond?

Manage Discussion Entry

Problem 1

The argument for Leona acting as an agent for GoodBurger can be illustrated by reviewing the components of what establishes an agent: Assent, Control, and On Behalf of. Leona and GoodBurger both assent using the Franchise Agreement which outlines the controls and freedoms in which Leona may operate her franchise. GoodBurger, acting as the Principal, exercises significant controls through its Operations Manual also referenced as the "Goodburger Bible" which dictates the day-to-day job functions of those employed at Leona's GoodBurger franchise as well as product guidelines and other operational tasks. This places Leona in the agent position. Should Leona choose not to adhere to the practices outlined in the Operations Manual, she will run the risk of losing her franchise. The execution of these guidelines and restrictions is on behalf of the Goodburger Franchisor as well as herself. These representations are presented to a Third Party which is essentially the Goodburger customer base. This establishes the apparent agency relationship. By utilizing the marketing materials including signage and other GoodBurger branding materials, the Franchisee is making manifestations that it is acting on behalf of the Franchisor.

The argument against an agency relationship between Leona and Goodburger could be argued with the concept of compensation. In a traditional agency relationship, the Principal (Goodburger Franchisor) would compensate the Agent (Leona-Franchisee); however, in a franchise relationship, it is the Franchisee who is compensating the Franchisor. In addition, it may be the Franchisor has sought indemnification from the Franchisee.

Problem 2

Dana, the Hornets owner, would most likely be liable for the injury sustained by Ann because Joe (the Hornets' pitcher) threw an errant fastball that hit Ann in the face. Dana, the employer, would be responsible for the conduct of her employee, Joe, even though he was acting in retaliation. This incident would fall within the "zone of risk" test and is foreseeable based on Joe's line of work. An argument against Dana's liability is the direct nature of the engagement. There is inherent risk associated with attending a live sports event. The liability could be transferred to the event facility as a "general" risk associated with the type of event regardless of the negligent behavior in which the situation occurred.

Pat, the Spiders owner, would most likely be liable for the injury sustained by Joe, resulting in his employee, Lefty, tackling Joe and bringing him out of the dugout where he repeatedly punches him and creates a scenario in which Joe is subsequently attacked by Spiders' bench. In this instance, the employees were acting within their scope of employment. Although this behavior is not sanctioned as appropriate, the action of "bench clearing" which leads to altercations between teams is not unheard of and would create liability on behalf of the Spiders.

Both Lefty and Joe would be entitled to workers' compensation because of their injuries regardless of fault. Due to their line of work and the fact the injuries occurred while actively on the job, workers' compensation would come into play in this scenario. An argument for the denial of workers' compensation would be the direct act of fighting in which the gentlemen engaged to create their injuries. This act is culpable behavior on behalf of both parties.

Problem 3

The likely outcome of the lawsuit is the court will side with Barney Gumble to recover the missing commissions he was promised by Lionel Hutz, Sales Manager for Duff Beer Group. This would be a case of apparent agency. In this situation, Barney Gumble, the third party, reasonably believes the agent, Lionel Hutz, is acting on behalf of Duff Beer Group, the Principal, and has the authority to promise additional commissions and this belief was directly due to the manifestations by the company.