Elements of Contract Analysis: eBay Case Study Paper Example

In this case, Empire Courier Service is the principal who has given legal authority to Dave who acts as Empire's agent. In law, the principal is someone under whose behalf the agent acts. An agent is a person who acts on behalf of the principal (Simmons, 2007). For this circumstance, Empire Courier Service is the standard who has given legitimate energy to Dave who goes about as Empire's administrator. In law, the boss is some individual under whose advantage the administrator shows. An administrator is a man who follows up for the advantage of the essential. As per the law of office, the principle is committed and responsible for all exhibitions and oversights of the administrator gave that the showings and rejections occurred inside the degree of work. As per the law of agency, the principal is liable and responsible for all acts and omissions of the agent provided that the acts and omissions occurred within the scope of employment (Simmons, 2007). In this case, Dave was on duty as he was making deliveries. Although he was going for a lunch break, Dave will still be considered to be acting within the scope of employment when the accident occurred as the law will consider Dave to be acting within the scope of his authority. Thus, Empire Courier Service will be 'jointly and severally' liable1for Dave's negligence for causing the car accident.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Either Dave or Empire Courier Service is responsible for the car accident. Dave is solely responsible for the assault. In this scenario, Dave is the employee of Empire Courier Service. As such, Empire Courier Service may be held responsible for the actions of its employees under the principle of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is a situation in which a person may be held responsible for the actions of another (Deakin & Markesinis, 2008). It must be established that an employer and employee relationship existed for the employer to be held liable. It must also be established that the employee committed the tort in the course of duty (Storey v Ashton). In this scenario, it is clear that Dave was between deliveries when he committed the tort. The requirements for the proof of vicarious liability are properly met. Empire Courier Service is therefore liable for the car accident. However, it should be noted that the principle of vicarious liability only allows the plaintiff to obtain damages from the stronger party. The plaintiff may therefore correctly sue Dave for the car accident without involving the employer.

Another issue here is the case of intentional tort in which Dave punches Victor. Here the act of punching Victor was an intentional act of Dave. In this case, Dave was not authorized by the Empire Courier Service to punch Victor or to intentionally cause harm to Victor or any other third party in any way. Dave was also not apparently authorized by his principal i.e. Empire Courier Service. Lastly, Dave had no power that arose from the agency relation to intentionally cause any harm to Victor or any other person for that matter (Deakin & Markesinis, 2008). Thus Dave himself will be liable for the intentional tort of punching Victor. The last issue is the assault. Here, the assault was not authorized or in the course of duty. The assault was not committed when performing duties that would directly benefit the employer. There is no connection between the work of the employee and the tort committed (Lister v Hesley Hall). Dave was also not apparently affirmed by his premier i.e. Area Courier Service. Likewise, Dave himself will be subject for the deliberate tort of punching Victor. Work only provided an opportunity to commit the tort. Dave is therefore solely responsible for the assault.

References

Deakin, J. & Markesinis, C. (2008). Markesinis & Deakin's Tort Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Simmons, K. (2007). The Crime/Tort Distinction: Legal Doctrine and Normative Perspectives. Widener Law Review.