James's Agency and Negligence

This assignment delves into a legal case where James, a landscaping contractor, signed for a delivery of plants without explicit authorization from his clients, the Millers. During their absence, he acted upon what he deemed reasonable, but his actions resulted in significant damages. The analysis focuses on applying agency law principles to determine James's liability and explore the concepts of express and implied authority within contractual relationships.

Running Head: LEGAL POSITION 1
Legal position
Student’s Name
Institution
Course Instructor
Date

LEGAL POSITION 2
1.0 Issue.
Was once James responsible for the harm that his employers had been dealing with? The
quandary in this case is whether James will have to be liable for the damages incurred from his
movements for receiving and transplanting a load of plants as well as utilizing Miller’s cash in
acquiring fertilizer and irrigation approach. Should James be held dependable for his negligent
actions that resulted in colossal damages to each the Millers and to the manufacturer that had
hired the truck driver to do the delivery? Or must the Miller’s be liable for the damages incurred
given that James was once performing underneath the permission, directions or within the
exceptional curiosity of his major?
Whether James will probably be liable in masking for the damages incurred in acquiring load of
crops and transplanting vegetation that were mistakenly given to him as good as covering the
charges incurred with the aid of buying the irrigation procedure and fertilizer on the account of
the Millers exclusively is dependent upon whether or not he had the responsibility or the vigor
expressly or impliedly communicated to him via his essential- the miller’s. In this context,
specific exact authority entails the recommendations and instructions from the millers to James,
at the same time implied actual authority is the James’s capability to hold out whatever used to
be affordable assuming that the primary wanted him to behave as a consequence in expressing
his exact authority.
2. Rule of law
An agency relationship needs that agents should act diligently with loyalty and will have to be
thoroughly compensated for the offerings that he/she undertakes on behave of the essential.
Nonetheless, agents must be bind with the aid of any act negligence that may outcomes in
damage to the most important or a 3rd celebration.
1
1

LEGAL POSITION 3
outlined by the contract, which is special from his/her fiduciary duties to the major, even as,
individually, 2
the predominant could consent to conduct via the agent that will to otherwise outcome in a
breach the agent’s fiduciary duties (Robert, 2013).
3. Case analysis.
When inspecting a given case involving a most important and a third occasion involving liability
for movements triggered by way of an agent courts tend to attract upon quite a lot of quantity of
doctrines. Nevertheless, the variety of doctrines used alerts a signal of problem that the court
docket is in additional than the convenience the courtroom is in arising with particular resolution
of the topic. Some of these doctrines require considerable notion of their software. What makes
authority “specific? How obvious does “apparent authority must be? And when does the decide
have to pull the last inn of “inherent company power?” The final class of inherent agency was
once created after judges started realizing that the circumstances that have been coming their
method did not in the current doctrines. These doctrines are applied haphazardly mainly giving
upward push to the suspicion that this circumstances most judges are finding out whether these
instances should be decided on long-established feel grounds than groping legal formalisms
in this unique case, James categorical authority was landscaping Lilly court docket Villa, were
he was reduced in size by the Millers who owned the position. James implied authority was to
act as a result and reasonably in all movements associated at landscaping the Lilly courtroom
Villa. Nevertheless, in unique reference to this case, he was once no longer given categorical
authority to obtain load of crops, signal for a supply from a 3rd party. As a contractor shriveled
in landscaping Lilly court Villa James he used to be now not given any categorical authority to
signal supply.
Apparent authority outcome when the main’s earlier dealings or conduct and verbal exchange
make a 3rd social gathering to reasonably consider that the agent is equipped to do or act on the
habits of the foremost (Warren, 2004). In this certain case, they were no conversation between
the foremost and the supply corporation the James used to be licensed to obtain and sign any
2 1. Clive , T., & John , T. (2013). Australian Commercial Law. Lawbook Company, 2013

LEGAL POSITION 4
vegetation supply and there will not be tips that point out that the organization had delivered
crops to Lilly court Villa. The nature as well because the natural responsibility of James as
landscape contractor does not make it sound or cheap for James to sign for the supply on Miller’s
account. For that reason, the supply enterprise lack credible declare to persuade James in signing
the supply on the behalf of the Miller’s.
3.1 apparent authorities.
Typically the foremost could lack the authority to authorize exact transactions or to hold out
quite a lot of responsibilities on behave of the principal, however a third get together would
moderately infer from the foremost’s conduct that the agent used to be authorized. By and large,
a man or woman is just not held liable for the moves of an additional person except the character
is allowed to behave on his or behalf. An exception is the doctrine of “apparent authority that is
probably applied to restrict injustice from being propagated to the third social gathering (Koffler,
2013). A mere statement that one is an agent isn't adequate to establish an company. A third
celebration has the duty to ascertain whether or not or no longer that any person claiming to be
an agent has the authority to hold out a distinctive transaction or a certain motion on behalf of the
fundamental. In a situation whereby the principal leads different men and women into believing
that one has the authority to carry a special action then, he or she will be sure via his conduct that
an agent in that given quandary must have almost always have the authority to do (Rasmusen,
2001). To that end, James would argue that he must no longer be held responsible for the
negligence movements of the truck driver. The track driver failed to ascertain whether or not
James was once competent to acquire the burden of vegetation that have been presumed to have
been ordered by means of the Millers. The lack of understanding of the truck driver to ascertain
the authority of James resulted in damages to his company and James ought not to be held in
c3harge. In addition, James may just argue that the moves of the Millers of leaving of
contracting him as their gardening contractor as good as leaving him with the keys lead the truck
driver to feel they was an company relationship. This factor the truck driver to consider that
James had the authority to acquire, signal for supply of the plant load and transplant them to the
3 Huffcut, E. (1999). Elements of the Law of Agency. Beard Books, 1999.

LEGAL POSITION 5
Miller’s enterprise. In mild to this, James could argue that the Millers must be dependable in
compensating the damages seeing that that they conduct of leaving him in command of the
compound may have lead the truck driver to feel that they used to be an company relationship
between James and the Millers.
The actual fact the Miller’s left the key with James as good as the fact he was Miller’s gardening
contractor can have given the truck driver the affect that James used to be authorized to acquire
and sign for the supply plants load for supply. Despite their now not being an current specific
authority permitting James to obtain goods on behalf of his major- Millers, the apparent authority
applies in this case when you consider that the moves of the principal made the truck driver to
infer reasonably that James was authorized to sign for the supply on behalf of his principle.
In his defense towards deciding to buy the cost incurred in buying the Fertilizer and the irrigation
approach, James might argue that they had been an exact categorical authority to do what was
once high-quality for the backyard. The doctrine of “specific specific authority” demands that the
most important has engaged into an explicit agreement with an agent to take a targeted action. In
this case, having been contractor by the Miller’s as their gardening Contractor James was
licensed to do take more than a few movements that will be in the satisfactory interest of the
backyard. In this case, the acquisition of fertilizers and the irrigation process he used to be
exercising his specific categorical authority and will have to thus now not be held responsible for
acquiring the fertilizer and the irrigation system.
3.2 specific implied authority.
By and large the precept may just engage into an explicit agreement with an agent. Besides the
fact that children that an agent could fail to expressly authorize specific movements the agent can
moderately infer that the main has delegated to him or her the energy to hold out such routine
(Huffcut, 1999). In this case, James could argue that for the reason that he used to be contracted
to landscape the backyard he was once sure to authorize any endeavor that relates to the
panorama of gardens at the Lilly court Villa, and this was the reason why he signed for the
supply of the load of crops and went extra in buying fertilizer and an irrigation procedure on
miller’s account.
Three.Three agency ratification.

LEGAL POSITION 6
Marketers are bound by the terms of the employment contract, and the main would must consent
to the actions that are performed via the agent beyond the authority there have issued to the
dealers (Wenee, 2005). In light to this, the Millers would preserve James responsible for the
damages prompted via arguing that he acted outside the limits of his contract. On the grounds
that James was once contracted by the Miller’s, he was once only licensed to work within the
compound. By providing to obtain and signal crops load on behave of the Miller’s, he was
performing behold the demarcations of his contract. Hence, he must be held accountable.
4 Tort liability.
The agent and the major are each and every held liable for their possess tortious actions. The
principle is responsible for moves of an agent who's appearing inside the scope of his or her
authority. On the other hand the agent is most effective dependable for the selections of the
important handiest when he or she straight or indirectly participates in or aids and abets the
main’s conduct. Part 7.1 of Restatement of company dictates that dealers might be held in
charge to a third get together shall be bound by means of the agent’ s tortuous acts, irrespective
besides the fact that children that the major is held accountable via the 1/3 get together or the
agent is functioning in a respective potential (MCCarthy, 2014). The guideline is high-quality
illustrated with the aid of the case state of affairs of an Actor, who drives negligently main to an
accident whilst riding within the path of undertaking specified tasks for his or her most
important. The actor while be in my opinion be accountable to any person injured during the
crash. In particular reference to our case, James might be held liable for his tortuous actions.
James actions of no longer disclosing knowledge in regards to the delivery of plants resulted to
damage each to the organization and The Miller’s.
Nonetheless, not all agent’s tortious habits result in legal responsibility to the third part will
4make agent liable to the 0.33 social gathering. Just as stated in section 7.02 of the Restatement
of agency, that states that agent’s tortuous habits have to outcome to violation of responsibility
owed to instantly to the 1/3 get together. For example, an agent or someone else who drives a
vehicle on a highway owes a obligation to humans nearby and not to knock them down due to his
negligence. In gentle to this, James would don’t be in charge to any damage incurred with the aid
of the company from mistakenly supplying lots of crops to the Miller’s. It is considering James
4 Kozlowski, J. (2013, December 12). No Agency Liability for Independent Contractor Negligence. Boston, United
States of America.

LEGAL POSITION 7
didn’t to owe the corporation the obligation of informing them in the event that they had been to
the vegetation to the tackle of the Millers. Section 7.02 further shows that and breach of contract
is not by way of an agent that's owed to a major does no longer type foundation for the agent’s
tort liability to a third social gathering. For instance, if an agent of a soccer participant negotiates
a contract with a third celebration and fails to inform the football player concerning the contract,
the marketers will not be held agent in charge to recuperate damages incurred therefore of his or
her negligence. It is due to the fact the agent owes responsibility to the soccer participant and
not to the third occasion. For that reason, the organization that delivered vegetation wrongly to
Miller’s tackle can not recuperate harm incurred from providing plants to the incorrect deal with,
as a consequence of James negligence of not informing his primary about the presumed delivery.
3.5 Vicious legal responsibility.
Negligence legal responsibility presupposes quite a lot of mechanisms to mitigate over the
operational details of an unreasonably action or habits which would damage or loss to the
essential. Below the normal “grasp/ servant Rule” as well as “vicarious legal responsibility”
doctrine, the master have to be held dependable or in charge for the negligent movements of the
servants which have been dedicated within the scope of the servant’s authority. In other words,
sellers will most effective be liable for negligent act, if such negligence is said or incidental to an
agent’s responsibilities (Kozlowski, 2013).
Vicarious legal responsibility emanates when a character is in charge for a tort of a different
character. It is a type of strict legal responsibility which results by means of the virtue of the
relationship between the exact tortfeasor and the individual who's made vicariously accountable.
Only the master and servant relationship has a normal rule imposing vicarious legal
responsibility in all circumstances. The remainder categories are inclined to have vicarious
liability imposed in distinct excellent instances most effective. There's much debate on whether
or not the connection between agent and major is the person who attracts vicarious liability. At
the same time now not universally approved there are more than a few special foremost and
agent situations whereby courts based vicarious legal responsibility. With specific reference this
dilemma was considered in the case of Hollis V Vabu. The difficulty, on this case, was that an
unidentified courier bicycle owner had negligently brought about accidents to a pedestrian in the
path of his couriering pursuits. Under the natural principle the enterprise would most effective be

LEGAL POSITION 8
held accountable if the courier was once regarded to the hire of the manufacturer not an
independent contractor. For that reason, the court docket needed to take into account the
character of the connection of the courier’s company and whether this constituted an impartial
contractor relationship or an employment relationship. The other case of curiosity on this context
is that of Morgans VS Lauchbury. On this unique case to affix liability on the owner of a vehicle
for the negligence of the driver which resulted in damage of pedestrians, it was very relevant to
show that the driver was once appearing under the behavior of the proprietor (Jack, 2002). For
agency relationship to exist, it was integral to depict that the driving force was riding at the
owner’s request, specific or implied or guidelines and she or he was doing so in performing a
undertaking delegated to him via the owner. The fact that the driving force was using the auto
underneath the proprietor’s instruction and permission and the purpose for which the auto was
once being used was one where the owner of the car had an interest in was once ample to set up
vicarious liability. In particular reference to our case, the truth that James movements of
receiving and signing the supply of a load of plants for transplant weren't requested or prompt
with the aid of the Millers are not adequate to establish vicarious legal responsibility against the
Millers. For sufficient vicarious legal responsibility to be situated in opposition to the Millers,
James’s movements had to be supported by using the truth that the owner, had an interest within
the outcome of his actions. When you consider that the Millers had now not ordered the load
crops to be delivered and signed through James as well as the purchase of fertilizer and irrigation
material, the Millers could not be held accountable for his moves.
Beneath the doctrine of “respondent advanced,” a most important can be in charge for special
ac5ts of his or her agent. For the important to be held liable, an agency relationship need to exist,
and the habits have to be inside the scope of employment. In instances whereby an agent is
unbiased contractor, and his or her moves will not be below the manage of the most important,
no employment hindrance that exists. For this reason, the predominant may not be held
accountable for the conduct of the agent (Keatinge , 2014). So to assess whether or not an
employment fame does exists, the courtroom not simplest appears at the measure of manage that
the important pastime over his or her agent but it surely has considers whether or not or now not
his agent is engaged in unique industry, the interval of employment and the measure of skill
5MCCarthy, L. (2014, January). VICARIOUS Vicarious Liability In The Agency Context. Journal of Business, 70-
81.

LEGAL POSITION 9
concerned within the obligations. When the court docket ascertains that the marketers is indeed
an worker and no longer an impartial contractor, the company, who is the most important, will
likely be held responsible for misconduct or negligent acts perpetrated through the agent that
will have resulted in accidents or harm to property belonging to other men and women. On this
case, beneath the doctrine of “respondent advanced” the millers will not be in charge for the
damage induced through James to the supply enterprise. It is for the reason that James was an
impartial contractor whose tasks of landscaping the compound, the millers had no manage over.
James will have to for that reason be liable to his negligent movements of receiving and signing
the delivering load of vegetation with out informing the millers due to the fact that he had the
contact of their resort in surge that resultant to enormous damages to each the manufacturer and
the Millers household. Due to the fact his actions as an independent contractor led to no longer
only receive a supply without the consent of his principal but additionally led him to purchase
fertilizer and an irrigation system on their account, he will have to compensate the millers for
the damages incurred for this reason of his actions.
By means of beginning an agency relationship, sellers are appointed and work for the
fundamental. In this capability, they ought to be diligent, devoted and loyal to their principals
and must act professionally striking their first-rate efforts to promote the interest of their
principals (Clive , John , & Roger , 2014). To that end, retailers have the responsibility of
keeping their principals wholly advised every on disorders or information that could influence
the field matter of the agency. In occasion whereby an agent neglects to go imperative
understanding the primary might be liable as in the event that they received the understanding
instantly or have been advised by an extra social gathering. If retailers fail to inform the
foremost, the predominant can keep the dealers dependable for the ensuing loss. In light to this,
the Millers could keep James in charge for no longer disclosing valuable understanding
concerning the delivery of the loads of crops the truck driver. With the prior knowledge that the
Millers would be having three week Christmas vacation, the Millers left James a key to Lilly
court Villa’s compound. Additionally they left the contact quantity of the inn that they were
going to stay during their vacation so as he would contact them when indispensable. James
failed to behave diligently by using failing to notify the Miller’s that the items that have been

LEGAL POSITION 10
presumed to have been ordered via them had arrived and a signature was required for their
delivery. He also had to have consultant the millers earlier than beginning with the transplant of
the crops as well as earlier than buying the irrigation process and fertilizer. The failure of James
to notify is principals of the advent of the weight of crops resulted in massive damages to the
Millers. On the grounds that the failure of an agent to keep up a correspondence about
impending crucial transactions holds the foremost bounds the principal as if he/she had been told
or has obtained discover of the transaction, the Millers on this case have been going to be certain
of James negligence. However, the Miller’s may keep James in charge citing that his
negligence moves of failing to keep up a correspondence to them in regards to the supply of
plant load presumed to were ordered via the Millers. The damages shouldn't have been realized if
James had acted diligently and involved them about the delivery.
On this case, the Millers would argue that James handed the scope of his authority. An agent
who will get into a contract on behalf of an extra celebration impliedly warrants that one has the
vigor to take action. In occasions whereby an agent exceeds the scope of his authority, the main
are not able to be held under consideration unless the predominant ratifies the contract. On this
case, James because exceed his authority by way of signing the delivery of a load of plants; the
0.33 party-crops company will preserve him in charge for breaching the implied warrant of
au6thority.
Sellers are beneath a obligation to apply affordable care as well as skills that are more often than
not determined within the gentle on more than a few circumstances of a specified case.
Professionally speaking, one of these responsibility is among the most valuable matters to recall
(Clive & John, 2013). It harbors the perfect penalty because authentic negligence is extremely
costly concerning awards as well as time if the topic gets to courtroom.
5. Conclusion
On this case, given that James used to be a contractor, reduced in size by using the Millers for
landscaping their gardens, James’s express authority was to carrying out tasks around the
compound of the Millers. His position as a landscaping contractor gave him implied authority to
do whatever that he deemed reasonably related to his duties as a contractor. He would argue that
this was once the intent that he determined to sign for the supply of a load of vegetation and
6 Rasmusen, E. (2001, May 12). Agency Law and Contact Formation. Minnesota : American Law Institute

LEGAL POSITION 11
transplant them earlier than they wilt. Regardless of this being a reputable reason, the Millers had
now not given him any specific authority to receive and sign for deliveries in the course of the
three weeks of their trip. To that end, James had no genuine authority to signal for the delivery of
a load of vegetation from the truck driver. His negligent acts resulted in giant damages to each
the 1/3 social gathering and to the Millers. James is subjected to compensate the Millers as a
result of the damages that they have incurred for this reason of his negligent motion.
7
7 . Clive , T., & John , T. (2013). Australian Commercial Law. Lawbook Company, 2013.
2. Clive , T., John , T., & Roger , G. (2014). Concise Australian Commercial Law. 2014

LEGAL POSITION 12
References
1. Clive , T., & John , T. (2013). Australian Commercial Law. Lawbook Company, 2013.
2. Clive , T., John , T., & Roger , G. (2014). Concise Australian Commercial Law. 2014.
3. Huffcut, E. (1999). Elements of the Law of Agency. Beard Books, 1999.
4. Jack, L. (2002, May 13). Jury Acquits Kevorkian in Common-Law Case.
5. Keatinge , R. (2014, July 15). The Liability of Managers and Other Agents for Their
Own Actions on Behalf of an LLC. Denver, Colorado: American Bar Assoiciation.
6.Koffler , J. (2013, June 12). Common Law Pleading. New York , New York , United
States of America.

LEGAL POSITION 13
7.Kozlowski, J. (2013, December 12). No Agency Liability for Independent Contractor
Negligence. Boston, United States of America.
8.MCCarthy, L. (2014, January). VICARIOUS Vicarious Liability In The Agency
Context. Journal of Business, 70-81.
9. Rasmusen, E. (2001, May 12). Agency Law and Contact Formation. Minnesota :
American Law Institute.
10. Robert, S. (2013, May 17). Relationships between Principal and Agent. Survive Law,
47-53.
11. Warren, S. (2004). The Rationale of Agency. The Yale Law Journal, 30(8), 145-167.
12. Wenee, M. (2005). The Law of Agency - legal duties of an agent. The American
Journal of Comparative Law, 13(2), 98-105.