Answer:
Refer to the case Memorial Hospital v Baumann
Case Issue
The facts to this case are:
• A daughter (defendant) signed a contract which stated personal liability for the medical expenses of her mother.
• The mother died and the hospital (plaintiff) claimed she is liable for payment.
The issue is whether the daughter is liable for payment of the fees.
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Agent - is someone who is hired by a principal to act for the principal.
• The agent is seen to be controlled by the principal.
• Liability caused by the agent will make the principal liable.
• However, an agent herself is not liable for actions made on behalf of a disclosed principal.
Opinion
The court held for the defendant. They argued that:
• The daughter signed as an agent for the disclosed principal.
• Agents themselves are not liable for actions made on behalf of a known principal.
• The hospital clearly knew this fact and doesn't dispute it.
Thus, she is not personally liable for the cost.
Answer:
Refer to the case Haag v Bongers
Case Issue
The facts to this case are:
• A diseased estate (defendant) hired an auctioneer to sell belongings of the diseased.
• An item that was negligently handled fell and landed at the auction injuring the H.
The issue is whether H can sue the estate, or can only sue the auctioneer for liability.
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Respondeat superior
• Imposes liability of the principal or employer of actions by agent or employee.
• Known as vicarious liability.
Liability of independent contractors
• Typically, independent contractors are not considered agent or employees.
• Thus, liable for their own actions.
• But, hirer can be liable if they control the actions of the contractor.
Opinion
The court held for the plaintiff. They argued that, while the auctioneer is considered an independent contractor, but the estate is liable because they had substantial control over the contractor. The court found that:
• Auction was held at the estate's location.
• The estate was responsible for the care of the items at auction.
• And the assistants at the auction were hired by the estate.
Since, the estate had substantial control over the independent contractor, they are held liable.
Answer:
Case summary:
Mr. LS is an architect and was hired by AF to work on a land development project. In September, LS contacted Central M professional services to provide engineering and surveying over the project assigned to him by AF. In October, Central sent him a proposal of this work and LS agreed to them orally stating that they should go for this work. Later on when the first phase of this work was completed, Central sent a bill to LS amounting $5864.00. Over this LS requested them to send all the bills directly to AF. When the payment of bill was not paid, Central sued both LS and AF. The court gave a summary judgment favoring Central and asks LS to pay a fine of $ $5864.00. Over this LS appealed and disclosed that he has not revealed the identity of the principal (AF) to Central at the time of agreeing to its proposal. But LS has also maintained that he has disclosed to Central that he is an architect and not the developer and thus there is no binding contract between central and him.
Conclusion:
As it is said that Central has not taken any written and signed document from LS at the time it started working on the first phase of the proposal thus it is not entitled to get any legal right to sue AF and LS for the non-payment of the bills. Secondly, when LS has disclosed to Central that he is an architect and not the developer and thus there is no binding contract, over this Central should have asked LS about the principal in this contract and the name of the land developer. But Central failed to do so and thus the court should gave punishment and held LS liable for this scandal but legally Central cannot sue LS for fraud in absence of any written proves with it stating about the agreement and binding contract between both of them.