Empire Courier Service
All employment jobs are based on the agency relationship that exists between the employer and the employee. The agent is authorized to act on the behalf of the principal. The four types of agency relationships are expressed agency, implied authority, agency by estoppel, and agency by ratification (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 412). The most common relationship is the expressed agency which is applicable between Dave and Empire Courier Service. Their expressed relationship would presumably be expressed through an employer/employee contract. The three types of business relationships are principal-agent, employer-employee, and the employer-independent contractor relationship (Kubasek, Brown, …show more content…
The principal is liable for the negligent hiring on an agent (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 427). Information was provided in the case study that explained Dave was a “hothead” and had received criminal charges in the past. This personality indicator was never discovered by the Empire Courier Service. Ignorance is not an argument for avoiding liability cases.
Employer-Independent Contractor Relationship
In an employer-independent contractor relationship, the independent contractor is a freelance employee who is not controlled by the employer. The benefit is that the principal is not liable for the actions of the agent. The only stipulation with the liability is if the contractor is performing hazardous activities (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 435).
Conclusion
As written earlier, ultimately the factor of liability will come down to the relationship between Dave and Empire Courier Service. If the relationship is unclear, the courts decide by deciding how much control one has over the other (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 417). If in fact, Dave was considered an employee, Empire Courier Service would be liable for the car accident and the assault on Victor. Otherwise, Empire Courier Service wouldn’t be at fault with either
All employment jobs are based on the agency relationship that exists between the employer and the employee. The agent is authorized to act on the behalf of the principal. The four types of agency relationships are expressed agency, implied authority, agency by estoppel, and agency by ratification (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 412). The most common relationship is the expressed agency which is applicable between Dave and Empire Courier Service. Their expressed relationship would presumably be expressed through an employer/employee contract. The three types of business relationships are principal-agent, employer-employee, and the employer-independent contractor relationship (Kubasek, Brown, …show more content…
The principal is liable for the negligent hiring on an agent (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 427). Information was provided in the case study that explained Dave was a “hothead” and had received criminal charges in the past. This personality indicator was never discovered by the Empire Courier Service. Ignorance is not an argument for avoiding liability cases.
Employer-Independent Contractor Relationship
In an employer-independent contractor relationship, the independent contractor is a freelance employee who is not controlled by the employer. The benefit is that the principal is not liable for the actions of the agent. The only stipulation with the liability is if the contractor is performing hazardous activities (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 435).
Conclusion
As written earlier, ultimately the factor of liability will come down to the relationship between Dave and Empire Courier Service. If the relationship is unclear, the courts decide by deciding how much control one has over the other (Kubasek, Brown, Herron, Dhooge, & Barkacs, 2016, p. 417). If in fact, Dave was considered an employee, Empire Courier Service would be liable for the car accident and the assault on Victor. Otherwise, Empire Courier Service wouldn’t be at fault with either