36. a) Yes, because even though Peterman only provided Fogelman with a contract of agency that allowed him to sell the home, it can be inferred that he is also allowed to sell the piano that was still in the home. It does not have to be explicitly stated in the contract of agency.
b) Yes, because it would be reasonable for a third party to assume that Fogelman is allowed to sell the piano that was still in the home, in which Peterman gave him the right to sell through a contract of agency. c) Yes, because Peterman have given Fogelman the authority to sell the home. d) Yes, because Fogelman was appointed as an agent.
37. a) No, because there was no contract of agency, in which the truck driver have any authority to assure the shipper that the chemical would be protected from freezing.
b) Yes, because the company can be held accountable for the action of their employee. Therefore, if the truck driver damaged the …show more content…
a) No, because buying jewelry and the expensive painting for their home are not considered necessities.
b) No, because there was no approval of an unauthorized act performed by an agent and nor was there an approval on the act done in the principal’s name by an unauthorized person.
c) No, because Mr. Chalmers did not purchase the jewelry and the expensive painting. It was Mrs. Chalmers.
d) Yes, because essential purchases are considered necessities and under the law the responsibility of the spouse is the agency by necessity.
39. Principle of Law: Franklyn thought that he had the authority to enter into the contract on behalf of Woodbury.
Decision: Buron will succeed in her suit because Franklyn did not have the authority to enter into the contract.
40. Principle of Law: Ferrara had actual express authority with National through the contract of agency. However, the contract was breached. Decision: Perret will be successful in her suit against National because Ferrara was authorized to act on behalf of
b) Yes, because it would be reasonable for a third party to assume that Fogelman is allowed to sell the piano that was still in the home, in which Peterman gave him the right to sell through a contract of agency. c) Yes, because Peterman have given Fogelman the authority to sell the home. d) Yes, because Fogelman was appointed as an agent.
37. a) No, because there was no contract of agency, in which the truck driver have any authority to assure the shipper that the chemical would be protected from freezing.
b) Yes, because the company can be held accountable for the action of their employee. Therefore, if the truck driver damaged the …show more content…
a) No, because buying jewelry and the expensive painting for their home are not considered necessities.
b) No, because there was no approval of an unauthorized act performed by an agent and nor was there an approval on the act done in the principal’s name by an unauthorized person.
c) No, because Mr. Chalmers did not purchase the jewelry and the expensive painting. It was Mrs. Chalmers.
d) Yes, because essential purchases are considered necessities and under the law the responsibility of the spouse is the agency by necessity.
39. Principle of Law: Franklyn thought that he had the authority to enter into the contract on behalf of Woodbury.
Decision: Buron will succeed in her suit because Franklyn did not have the authority to enter into the contract.
40. Principle of Law: Ferrara had actual express authority with National through the contract of agency. However, the contract was breached. Decision: Perret will be successful in her suit against National because Ferrara was authorized to act on behalf of