Register to read the introduction…
At the time Coleman blew the fireball that killed Jimmy and severely damaged Jimmy’s bar, he was meeting with a client on company time. However, the doctrine of frolic and detour relieves the principal of liability if “an agent does something during the course of his/her employment to further his/her own interests rather than the principals” (Cheeseman 2010 p.475). When Coleman stole the ring, it was for his own personal interest which relieves the company of their
…show more content…
The handbook provided to Coleman stated that all employees shall receive an interview before being terminated. When Coleman was terminated he wasn’t given an interview as stated within the company handbook. Therefore, the cancellation of authority breached the agency contract and Coleman should receive compensation for …show more content…
At the time of Coleman’s termination, Software INC had the duty to notify its third parties of the termination. In not, Coleman has the apparent authority to bind Software INC to contracts. When John was told that “Software INC will pay the bill,” he didn’t know that Coleman wasn’t an employee or agent for Software INC.
Software INC will be held liable for John’s injuries because he was under the impression that Coleman was still an employee or agent for Software INC. This means that Coleman would be considered to be on company time and at an authorized place of the business when the incident happened.
If I were the CEO of Software INC or head of HR, I would’ve ensure that all policies were strictly followed when it came down to termination of an employee, such as giving them as interview even though they will still be terminated. I would immediately contact any current and former clients and inform them of the termination of the employee or agent and refer them to a new salesperson. I would also make sure that the business trips are planned and scheduled accordingly with the new salesperson including the time and place to meet, and ensure that both the client and the new salesperson know of this meeting and send a photo over to the client so that they know what the new salesperson looked like prior to the meeting and don’t have any
The handbook provided to Coleman stated that all employees shall receive an interview before being terminated. When Coleman was terminated he wasn’t given an interview as stated within the company handbook. Therefore, the cancellation of authority breached the agency contract and Coleman should receive compensation for …show more content…
At the time of Coleman’s termination, Software INC had the duty to notify its third parties of the termination. In not, Coleman has the apparent authority to bind Software INC to contracts. When John was told that “Software INC will pay the bill,” he didn’t know that Coleman wasn’t an employee or agent for Software INC.
Software INC will be held liable for John’s injuries because he was under the impression that Coleman was still an employee or agent for Software INC. This means that Coleman would be considered to be on company time and at an authorized place of the business when the incident happened.
If I were the CEO of Software INC or head of HR, I would’ve ensure that all policies were strictly followed when it came down to termination of an employee, such as giving them as interview even though they will still be terminated. I would immediately contact any current and former clients and inform them of the termination of the employee or agent and refer them to a new salesperson. I would also make sure that the business trips are planned and scheduled accordingly with the new salesperson including the time and place to meet, and ensure that both the client and the new salesperson know of this meeting and send a photo over to the client so that they know what the new salesperson looked like prior to the meeting and don’t have any