Summary
In business law, agents like Jake and Nami have fiduciary duties to act in their principals best interests. Jake breached this duty by investing Littles funds in Crypto stock, making him liable for the $10,000 loss. Nami, as a purchasing agent, must turn over gifts received during agency to Luffy, Inc. In Krusch v. TAMKO, Krusch was bound by warranty terms due to agent notice. Danielle lacked express and apparent authority for orange juice, so Professor McCrory isnt obligated to reimburse her. Understanding these principles helps clarify agent responsibilities and liabilities.Full Conversation
Nami is a purchasing agent for Luffy, Inc. (Luffy). He receives gifts from one of his clients.
Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, who is entitled to the gifts?
a. Nami since Luffy has a duty to compensate Nami.
b. Luffy, since anything of value that comes to Nami during the scope of the agency belongs to Luffy
c. No one, the gifts are a bribe and therefore, illegal.
d. Since Nami is a surety, she does not have a duty of loyalty to Luffy.
e. two of the above.
Based on the information provided, the correct answer is:
b. Luffy, since anything of value that comes to Nami during the scope of the agency belongs to Luffy.
As a purchasing agent, Nami has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of Luffy, Inc. Any gifts received during the scope of his agency role belong to the company, not to him personally.
In the case of Krusch v. TAMKO Building Products (the roof shingle warranty case) discussed in your reading, the court found which of the following:
a. Krusch is bound by the terms of the limited warranty because the agent had notice.
b. The agent is bound by the terms of the limited warranty as part of his duty of loyalty.
c. The agent was a dual agent, so Krusch was not bound by the terms of the warranty.
d. Two of the above.
e. All of the above.
The correct answer for the case of Krusch v. TAMKO Building Products is:
a. Krusch is bound by the terms of the limited warranty because the agent had notice.
(The following factual scenario applies to questions *-*)
For Sunday office hours, Professor McCrory sends Danielle to get donuts and coffee. Danielle comes back with donuts, orange juice, and coffee.
Flag question: Question *
Question * pts
*. Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of the following is true?
a. Danielle does not have express authority for the orange juice.
b. Danielle does not have implied authority for the orange juice.
c. Danielle does not have apparent authority for the orange juice.
d. Two of the above.
e. All of the above.
Case Rating: *
Danielle does not have express authority for the orange juice since she was specifically instructed to get donuts and coffee. She may have implied authority if getting orange juice is a customary addition in such situations. However, without more context on customary practices, it's likely that she does not have apparent authority either.
So, the correct answer would be:
d. Two of the above.
Danielle does not have express or apparent authority for the orange juice.
Based upon our class discussions, Professor McCrory does not have a duty to reimburse Danielle for the orange juice.
Group of answer choices
True
False
Case Rating: *
Based on the information provided, I would say the statement is likely "True." Since Danielle did not have express or apparent authority to purchase the orange juice, Professor McCrory would not have a duty to reimburse her for it.
Do you have any follow-up questions regarding this scenario?
TRY ME!
Start a new chat