Business And Finance Answers

Content type

User Generated

Subject

Business

Type

Homework

Uploaded By

qbhtc758

Pages

Rating

Surname 1

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

argument

Yes he was an agent. For the simple reason that he was a patron means that he had been

hired by the restaurant and therefore it was required of him to look out for the welfare of his

bosses. As patron he was required to be the eyes and ears on behalf of his bosses and in so doing

he acted as an agent of chili because he carried out an action on behalf of chili which was to

chase after these boys who did not pay for the food after they had eaten the food. Another reason

which could act as proof of him being an agent is the fact that he used his own cell phone and

called Chili’s manager who in turn called the police meaning chili restaurant valued his judgment

to act the way he did and the information he provided to them they believed it and only called the

police so that they could provide backup in arresting these boys and they.

argument

Goldick conduct is within his employment scope because the policy of the company was that

employees should not drive company vehicles for personal use and in this case he wasn’t driving

the vehicle for personal use but rather he was taking his friend and fellow employee of Lapp

Roofing to have lunch in Gators Bar and Restaurant. Goldick in the instructions given to him by

the company was that he was supposed to provide transportation to meals and other necessities

and he actually did this with his fellow employee James. The fact that Goldick was all this time

Surname 2

still in the company of his friend James, a fellow employee meant that his was conduct was still

within the scope of his employment with Lapp Roofing.

argument

When spires caused the accident he did so not under the scope of his employment therefore

the doctrine of respondent superior would not apply in this case. Johnson Welded Products did

provide a lunchroom equipped with a microwave, refrigerator and a vending machine for

sandwiches, snacks and drinks meaning it expected its employees to take their lunch in this

lunchroom. Spire on this day at work decided to go out to his friend’s house and have lunch and

on the way he caused the accident with his own pickup truck. By the deciding to go to his

friend’s house for lunch meant that he was no longer under the scope of his employment because

his employer’s company Johnson Welder Products did provide a place he could take his lunch

but he decided to go out instead. Another reason is that at the time of the accident he was driving

his own truck and not the company’s car.

argument

Starbucks was right to allege that the employees involved in the altercation did that not under

their employment scope. For the simple reason that the altercation took place outside the

premises of Starbucks and not inside justified Starbucks claims that the employees were not

End of Preview - Want to read all 4 pages?

Access Now

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Surname 1 Name: Tutor: Course: Date: 1st argument Yes he was an agent. For the simple reason that he was a patron means that he had been hired by the restaurant and therefore it was required of him to look out for the welfare of his bosses. As patron he was required to be the eyes and ears on behalf of his bosses and in so doing he acted as an agent of chili because he carried out an action on behalf of chili which was to chase after these boys who did not pay for the food after they had eaten the food. Another reason which could act as proof of him being an agent is the fact that he used his own cell phone and called Chili’s manager who in turn called the police meaning chili restaurant valued his judgment to act the way he did and the information he provided to them they believed it and only called the police so that they could provide backup in arresting these boys and they. 2nd argument Goldick conduct is within his employment scope because the policy of the company was that employees should not drive company vehicles for personal use and in this case he wasn’t driving the vehicle for personal use but rather he was taking his friend and fellow employee of Lapp Roofing to h ...
Purchase document to see full attachment