Case summary: K and C were hired for landscaping project by J and L. They were working under the name of OC. The payments were made by check on the name of K. A suit was filed against K and C for the breach of contract.
Partially disclosed or disclosed principal: In such type of cases, the principal is held liable for the contracts which are taken by the agents on behalf of or on the name of principle.
In this case, the payments made to K and C on behalf of OC were deposited in the personal account of K. The plaintiffs claim that K and C did not disclosed about the principal FGLI for which they were actually working for. Here, K and C disclosed that the principal FGLI is working under the name of OC. Going through the above-mentioned facts it can be concluded that if the plaintiffs were already informed about the principal company for which the agents were working, then the principal would be held liable for the accusations but here, they were not even partly informed about the principal. Thus, in this case, K and C are held liable for the plaintiff's allegations
In general, a principal and third party are bound only to a contract made by the principal's agent within the scope of the agent's authority. Arden was not acting within the scope of her regular duties when she offered to purchase the land from Wilson, so she did not have implied authority.
Arden did not have express authority to purchase the land on behalf of A B. Further, A B did nothing to lead Wilson to believe that Adams had the authority to purchase his land on their behalf.
Additionally, there was no emergency that would have necessitated the purchase of Wilson's land for A B. Therefore, neither party is bound to the terms of the contract unless A B ratifies the contract before Wilson withdraws the offer to sell.
Liability for Independent Contractor's Torts:
The best argument for the plaintiff is under the doctrine of respondeat superior where the employer is liable for the negligent acts or omissions of the employee that are committed within the scope of employment. When one party was acting as an agent or servant of another party, parties' liability is joint and several.
Dean's best defense is under the independent contractor provision for liability. Dean did not have the right to control the details of BSP's performance. It was BSP's responsibility to ensure that their employees were all certified to carry firearms while protecting the site. BSP was negligent in its duty to ensure that their employee Sidell was certified or did not carry a gun to work.
Because the work was not inherently dangerous and BSP was not required under contract to arm their guards, it was not Dean's responsibility to ensure that BSP followed safety regulations. Therefore the liability falls squarely on BSP and Sidell.