You are on page 1of 2

I have not discussed the problems in this assignment or my responses to them with anyone.

I have not provided my responses to anyone and no one has provided me with their responses. In other words, I state on my honor that this paper is entirely my work. Signed: _______ _________________________________

Mary Beth’s managing agent borrowed $4,250 from George. She says she will not pay the loan since she did not authorize it. Based on the rule; “if the principal is disclosed, the agent has no contractual liability for the nonperformance of the principal or the third party.” Mary Beth had acknowledged the debt to George since she made a payment to him and on several occasions told George she would pay the full balance. Her agent is not responsible for the fulfillment of the loan. Hence making Mary Beth liable for the debt she owes George.

Alden is acting as an agent after Packer’s death. According to the rule; “death or insanity of either principal or agent automatically and immediately terminates an ordinary agency relationship. Transactions after the death of the principal normally are not binding on the principal’s estate.” Packer died on June 2. Alden and Taylor delivered and paid for the peaches. Alden and Taylor signed a contract on June 11 for payment and delivery on June 30th. According to operations of law; agency was terminated the day Packer died. The contract had no validity although Alden had possession of the canned fruit. Packer’s executor is correct in advising Alden and Taylor that they cannot go into contract since Alden’s agency had been terminated upon his death. In this instance the transaction that took place on June 10 th had to be reversed; Alden returning the money to Taylor and Taylor returning the peaches to Alden. At the same time; Alden had an agency coupled with interest since he had possession of the principal’s property. Agency coupled with interest is not terminated by death nor is it revocable.

Richard Winters is an at-will employee for the Houston Chronicle that was terminated. Under the employment at-will doctrine, an employer/employee may end employment at any time or for any reason. Mr. Winters reported to upper management the alleged illegal activities that were occurring. The company saw him as a “Whistleblower” and terminated him on those pretenses. The court would decide in favor of the Houston Chronicle since there is an at-will contract between both parties. If this situation would have occurred in 1989 or after, Mr. Winters would have possibly been protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act.