ch 20 quiz

Assume a court determined the driver was on a detour from his regular duties and was negligent when he ran over Mr. Melnick's dog. Who would be liable to Melnick? Oscar (or his store) only. The driver only. Neither Oscar (or his store) nor the driver. Both Oscar (or his store) and the driver.

Both Oscar (or his store) and the driver.

If a court were to find that Dr. Early is an independent contractor for Pharzime, which of the following is true? Pharzime would be liable for torts Dr. Early commits at the hospital, but not for contracts Dr. Early writes by between Pharzime and the hospital while calling on customers there. Pharzime would be liable for contracts Dr. Early writes between Pharzime and the hospital, but not liable for torts Dr. Early commits at the hospital while calling on customers there. Pharzime would not be liable for contracts Dr. Early writes between Pharzime and the hospital, nor for torts Dr. Early commits at the hospital while calling on customers there. Pharzime would be liable for contracts Dr. Early writes between Pharzime and the hospital and for torts Dr. Early commits at the hospital while calling on customers there.

Pharzime would be liable for contracts Dr. Early writes between Pharzime and the hospital, but not liable for torts Dr. Early commits at the hospital while calling on customers there.

What theory of liability could Mr. Melnick use to try to claim damages for his dog? Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the torts of agents acting within the scope of employment. Strict liability makes principals liable for all acts of their agents. Respondeat superior makes principals liable for torts of their agents at all times. Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the criminal acts of their employees acting within the scope of employment.

Respondeat superior makes principals liable for the torts of agents acting within the scope of employment.

Would Oscar be liable for Melnick's damages since he did not specifically tell Vinny that he could drive the truck to the hospital? Yes, since it happened in Oscar's truck. No, Vinny did not have express authority to drive the truck in the area. Yes, because of the emergency Vinny would have implied authority to drive the truck to the hospital. No, because it was an emergency.

Yes, because of the emergency Vinny would have implied authority to drive the truck to the hospital.

If one of Oscar's trucks did run over Mr. Melnick's dog, is Oscar (or his store) likely liable for the damages? Yes, if the driver was on a frolic from his normal employment duties. All of these. No, if the employee was on a detour from his normal employment duties. Yes, if the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when he ran over the dog.

Yes, if the driver was acting within the scope of his employment when he ran over the dog.

Andy is Debbie's agent and commits fraud against Grocery Brothers, Inc. while acting within his apparent and actual authority. Which of the following correctly states Andy's liability in this situation? a. Andy is liable for both the tort and the crime. b. Andy is generally liable for the crime but not the tort, assuming that the tort was committed to advance the interests of the principal. c. Andy is generally liable for the crime but not the tort. d. Andy is not liable for the tort or the crime, assuming both were committed to advance the interests of the principal.

a. Andy is liable for both the tort and the crime.

In which of the following scenarios is the agent exposed to the least risk of liability? a. Disclosed principal and authorized contract. b. Undisclosed principal and authorized contract. c. Partially disclosed principal and authorized contract. d. Authorized receipt of money from third person remitted to disclosed principal.

a. Disclosed principal and authorized contract.

What issue did the court consider when it ruled on Parlato v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States? a. Whether the principal should be liable when a third party suffers a loss as the result of the agent's abuse, for his own fraudulent purposes, when the third party reasonably relied on apparent authority with which the principal invested the agent. b. The court based the ruling on the law of contractual interpretation. c. The court examined the matter under the rules of justifiable reliance. d. Whether the agent should be solely liable for financial injuries suffered by a third person due to the agent's deceit.

a. Whether the principal should be liable when a third party suffers a loss as the result of the agent's abuse, for his own fraudulent purposes, when the third party reasonably relied on apparent authority with which the principal invested the agent.

An agent is liable for harm caused to third persons as follows: a. liable for both the tort and the crime. b. generally liable for the crime but not the tort, assuming that the tort was committed to advance the interests of the principal. c. generally liable for the crime but not the tort. d. not liable for the tort or the crime, assuming both were committed to advance the interests of the principal

a. liable for both the tort and the crime.

The issue before the court in the Schoenberger v. Chicago Transit Authority case, was: a. whether Frank ZuChristian, acting as an agent for CTA, had the authority to orally contract on salary with Schoenberger. b. whether Schoenberger was reasonable in relying on the salary offered by ZuChristian. c. whether CTA knew that ZuChristian would be offering a salary figure to Schoenberger. d. whether the salary offered to Schoenberger was sufficient for the position

a. whether Frank ZuChristian, acting as an agent for CTA, had the authority to orally contract on salary with Schoenberger.

The issue before the court in the Rubin v. Yellow Cab Company case was: a. whether the cab driver's actions were within the scope of his employment at Yellow Cab making Yellow Cab liable for the injuries. b. whether the cab driver was liable for the injuries Rubin sustained in the attack. c. whether Yellow Cab was solely liable for injuries caused by the driver of the cab. d. whether Rubin was somewhat negligent for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

a. whether the cab driver's actions were within the scope of his employment at Yellow Cab making Yellow Cab liable for the injuries.

Donna is the principal and Mandy is her agent. If Mandy acquires knowledge or or notice of any fact, which situation will Donna be bound by such knowledge or notice of fact? a. Mandy is colluding with a third party. b. Mandy is acting with apparent or actual authority. c. Mandy is acting adversely to Donna's interest. d. None of these are correct.

b. Mandy is acting with apparent or actual authority.

The principal is bound by knowledge or notice of any fact that is acquired by an agent while acting within the scope of: a. collusion with a third party. b. apparent or actual authority. c. acting adversely to the principal's interest. d. None of these are correct.

b. apparent or actual authority.

Will is Ralph's agent. Will contracts with Polo, a third party, but such agreement exceeds Will's actual and apparent authority. What is the effect of Will's contract with Polo? a. binds the Ralph but not Will. b. does not bind Ralph. c. binds the Ralph and Will. d. None of these are correct.

b. does not bind Ralph.

If an agent exceeds his actual and apparent authority, the contract: a. binds the principal but not the agent. b. does not bind the principal. c. binds the principal and the agent. d. None of these are correct.

b. does not bind the principal.

A principal is bound by a statement made by an agent if: a. is contradicted by the principal. b. the statements were made by an agent while transacting business within the scope of agency authority. c. made after performance of the transaction concerned. d. None of these are correct.

b. the statements were made by an agent while transacting business within the scope of agency authority.

The court, in ruling on Connes v. Molalla Transport System, Inc., decided the issue of: a. whether the motel should have had a better security system to protect their night clerk from danger. b. whether the trucking firm was liable for negligent hiring for failing to check the non-vehicular criminal history of a truck driver. c. whether the driver was liable to Connes for his actions. d. whether the trucking firm should have been tracking their driver with a GPS device to know when he deviated from his route.

b. whether the trucking firm was liable for negligent hiring for failing to check the non-vehicular criminal history of a truck driver.

Andy Roust hired Clear-it, Inc., a demolition company, to level an old building on a busy downtown lot. Clear-it, Inc. was given full rein to decide on the amount of explosives needed and the placement of the charges. Security for the site on the day of the explosion was contracted out to a private security firm. When the appointed day arrived, the building was brought down. However, the building fell in a slightly different direction than that anticipated by Clear-it, Inc. Numerous pieces of adjoining property, both real and personal, were severely damaged. Roust claims that the use of an independent contractor such as Clear-it, Inc. has insulated him from liability. Is Roust liable for the acts of the independent contractor? a. No, Roust isn't liable because he didn't know there was any danger. b. No, Roust isn't liable because Clear-it was an independent contractor. c. Yes, Roust is liable because of the inherently dangerous nature of the work. d. Yes, Roust is liable because it was his building

c. Yes, Roust is liable because of the inherently dangerous nature of the work.

Eddie's Furniture Company is Roger's employer. If Roger negligently commits a tort against Sandra while in the course and scope of his employment, and Eddie's Furniture Company is held vicariously liable, what theory would the court apply to hold Eddie's Furniture Company liable? a. imperious liability. b. gregarious liability. c. respondeat superior. d. virtual superior.

c. respondeat superior.

The rule of law imposing vicarious liability on an innocent employer for the wrong of an employee is known as: a. imperious liability. b. gregarious liability. c. respondeat superior. d. virtual superior.

c. respondeat superior.

Bill is Hillary's agent. Bill wants to know what his liability is to Mike, a third party. Which of the following statements is correct? a. As an agent, Bill can never unintentionally make himself liable. b. As an agent, Bill is never liable to the third party. c. As an agent, Bill is always liable to the third party. d. As an agent, Bill's liability depends on the existence of authority and the manner of executing the contract.

d. As an agent, Bill's liability depends on the existence of authority and the manner of executing the contract.

Sammy is an agent for an undisclosed principal and makes a contract with Dana Construction Company on behalf of the undisclosed principal. What is Sammy's liability in this scenario? a. Sammy has no personal liability on the contract. b. Sammy is liable only to the principal on the contract. c. Sammy is liable only to the third party on the contract. d. Sammy is personally liable to both the principal and the third person on the contract.

d. Sammy is personally liable to both the principal and the third person on the contract.

Alan is an agent for Ebony Property Company. While in the course of his work for Ebony Property Company, Alan commits a tort against Susan. Which of the following correctly states Ebony Property Company's liability? a. Ebony Property Company is solely liable. b. Ebony Property Company is not vicariously liable. c. Vicarious liability cannot be imposed on Ebony Property Company because Alan, as an agent is not an employee. d. Vicarious liability could be imposed on Ebony Property Company

d. Vicarious liability could be imposed on Ebony Property Company

Bob worked as the agent of Anne. Anne was in the business of buying antique watches and selling them to the public. She became so successful at this that people began to become reluctant to sell to her, feeling that if she was buying the watch, it probably could be sold for more. Anne instructed Bob to purchase several watches but not to reveal that the purchases were being made on her behalf. Bob contracted to buy several watches and gave his own check as down payment to keep Anne's identity concealed. Although Anne had authorized the contracts, she reneged on the contracts. Bob thereupon told the seller what had happened and stopped payment on the down payment check. The seller of the watches sued Anne on the bounced check and for breach of contract. Bob was sued on the same causes of action. Is Bob liable? a. No, Bob isn't liable because he stopped payment of his check. b. No, Bob isn't liable since he was working as an agent. c. No, Anne is the only liable party. d. Yes, Bob is liable since he contracted in his own name.

d. Yes, Bob is liable since he contracted in his own name.

Priscilla was the agent in charge of distribution and collections for the Savvy Cheese Shopper. Rex operated a grocery store and purchased cheese products from Savvy. Priscilla made false invoice sheets, showing delivery to Rex of greater quantities than Rex actually had ordered or received. Priscilla collected from Rex on the basis of these increased amounts, and then kept for herself the difference between the increased amounts and the amounts that should have been charged. When Rex learned of this, he sued Savvy for the excess payments he had made. Savvy denied that Priscilla was its agent in making excess collections. Will Rex win? a. No, Savvy isn't liable because they didn't know of the fraud. b. No, Savvy isn't liable since they didn't authorize these transactions. c. No, Priscilla is the only liable party. d. Yes, Rex will win since Savvy should have better controls over their agents.

d. Yes, Rex will win since Savvy should have better controls over their agents.

An agent making a proper contract with a third person on behalf of an undisclosed principal: a. has no personal liability on the contract. b. is liable only to the principal on the contract. c. is liable only to the third party on the contract. d. is personally liable to both the principal and the third person on the contract.

d. is personally liable to both the principal and the third person on the contract.

The liability of a buyer for the purchase price of goods is: a. terminated when the order is placed. b. terminated when the buyer gave the buyer's agent purchase price. c. not terminated until the buyer pays twice for the object. d. not terminated by the fact that the buyer gave the buyer's agent the purchase price to remit to the seller.

d. not terminated by the fact that the buyer gave the buyer's agent the purchase price to remit to the seller.

The liability of the agent to the third person depends on: a. agents can never unintentionally make themselves liable. b. agents are never liable to the third party. c. agents are always liable to the third party. d. the existence of authority and the manner of executing the contract.

d. the existence of authority and the manner of executing the contract.

When a tort or crime is committed by an agent acting in the course of his work for the principal: a. the principal is solely liable. b. the principal is not vicariously liable. c. vicarious liability cannot be imposed on the principal because an agent is not an employee. d. vicarious liability could be imposed on the principal.

d. vicarious liability could be imposed on the principal.

Assume that Oscar says he would pay for Melnick's dog, even if he was not legally required to do so, because he thinks the driver did the right thing by driving the van to the hospital. This decision would make Oscar liable because of: express authority. implied authority. implied ratification. ratification.

ratification.