NO Plaguarism
6-5
Creations, to undertake a landscaping project. Kel,rn srgned the parties'conrract as "Outside Creations Rep.,'The Crisses' paymenrs on rhe contract were bl.checks payable to Kevin, who deposited them in his personal account_ there was no Outside Creations account. Later, alleging breach, the Cnsses filed a suit in a Georgra state court against the Pappases. The defendants contendecl that the1, could not be liable because the contract \,as not wrth them personaily. They claimed that the1, \,ere the agents of Forer.er Green Landscaping and lrrigarion. Inc., which had been operatrng under the name 'Outsrde Creatrons,, at the time of the conrracr and had since filed for bankruptclt The Crisses pornted out that the name "Forever Green,,was not in the contract. Can the Pappases be hable on this conrracr? \'hv or why not? [Pappas r.r Cr-iss, 296 Ga.App. 803. 676 s.E 2d 21 (2009)l
-To view a sample answer for Case problem 16_4, go to Appendix F at the end of this text. i. Agency by Ratification. Wesley Hall, an independent con_ tractor managing property for Acree Investments, Ltd., lost control of a fire he had set to ciear ten acres of Acree Iand. The runaway fire burned seventy-eight acres of Earl Barrs's propeny. Russell Acree, one of the owners of Acree Investments, had previously owned the ten acres, but he had put it into rhe company and he was no longer the principal owner. HaI1 had worked for Russell Acree in the past and had told rhe stare forestry department that he was burning the land for Acree. Barrs sued Russell Acree for the acts of his agent, Hall. In his suit, Barrs noted that Hall had been an empioyee of Russell Acree, Hall had talked about buming the land 'for Acree,,, Russell Acree had apologized to Barrs for the fire, and Acree Investments had not been identified as the principal property owner until Barrs had filed his lawsuit. Barrs argued that those facts were sufficient to create an agency by ratificatron to /imp,ose liabiliry on Russell Acree. Wai Barrs,s agency by ratification claim valid? Why or why nor? lBarri v. Acree , 302 Ga.App )2t, 691S E.2d 575 (20I0)l tiability Based on Actual or Apparent Authority. Sumn.Lerall Electric Co. and orher subcontractors were hrrecl br.Natronal Church Senices. lnc (NCS), which w-as rhe general con- tractLrr on a consrrucrion project for the Church oi God at Southar-en lthe Church) As rvork progressed, paFnenrs lrom NCS to the subconrracrors became later and later untrl ther- er.entually stoppeci. The Church had paid NCS in full lor rhe entire projecr beforehand. bur apparently, NCS had misman_ aged the project. When parments hom NCS stopped, ihe subcontracrors Iiled mechanrcs hens lsee Chaprer I2) for rhe value o[ the work they had perlormed bur lor rvhich the1, had not been paid. The subconrractors sued the Church. contending that NCS was its agent basecl on eirher actual authorir), or apparenr aurhonr),, and thus rhe Church w,as
[Sunrnrr'rall Electit Co v. Church of God at Southavm, 25 So 3d 1090 (App Mrss 2Ot0)J 1fi*7. Employment Relationships. William Moore orvnecl and operated Moore Enterprises, a w,holesale trre busrness, in ldaho. Whrle in high school, Williams son, Jonathan, rvorked as a Moore employee. Later, lonathan started his own business, called Morecedes Tire. Morecedes regrooved tires and sold them io businesses, inclucling Moore. Moore made payments for the tires not to Jonathan, but to Morecedes Tire, without tax withholding. A decade after Jonathan srarred Morecedes, William ollered him work with Moore for $ 12 per hour. Jonarhan accepted but retarned Morecedes Tire. On the first day, William told Jonathan to load some rires on a trailer. While Jonathan r.vas unhooking the trailer, a jack handle struck him. He suffered several broken bones rn his iace ancl a derached retina. He \'as ne\.er paid for the work. He filecl a work_ ers' compensaiion claim. Uncler Idahos laws, an incliviclual must be an employee-not an rndependent contractor_to obtain u,orkers' compensation. What criteria do the courts use ro derermine employee statusl How do they apply to Jonathan? Drscuss [Moorc v Moore , _ p3d _ (ldaho 201 1)l
i;:ir. Disclosed Principal. lr,lario Sclafanr (doing busrness as Martinuccr Desserls USA, Inc.), rvanted to place small refrigeration unrts contarning point-of-purchase imported Itahan desserts in Nerv \brk Crty restaurants. Felix Storch, Inc., makes commercral refngeration units. Sclafani ordered custom units lor 518,000. Feiix faxed a credit application ro Sclafanr. The application was faxed back ri'ith Sclafani's business banking rnlormation, credit refer_ ences, and a signature that appeared Lo be Sclafanis beneath a personal guaranty clause. Felir made and clelivered the unrts. The imported dessert busrness failed, and the units \ere not paid ior. Fehx filed a suit in a Neu,york state .ourt agatnst Sclalani to collect. Scialanr denied that he had s..n the creclit application or signed it and testified that hr reierred all credit questions ro.,rhe girls in the olfice... -{monq rhese parties, who is the principal? Who are the agentsl \'h.r is liable on rhe contract? Explain. lFeh,r Srorch, 1ri; ,,: lliir.riniticr Desseras IJSA, lnc.,30 Misc.3d 1217. g24
I S 2d 3r_r8 r2011)l 'a:; ffi A Question oI Ethics. Agency Formation and
EE Duties. Enw genct One, lnc. tEa.) . ntahe s fre and re s_ crr.' rrhicles. Western Fire T...lt. h.Lc., contracted with EO ir bc rrs e-rclusive dealer in Color ado and Wyomlng through Dccrml,l 2003. lamcs Cosrcllo. a \istcnr .salesposon, r,-as aLirhori:cd to order EO r,chr.1.: Jor hts ruitomerr. Wirhout irrfrrrriring Western, Co.stello t ntdibd EO abouL Westtrn,s diff- cLrlric-s in obtcLining cash to .ltotcl ils ope rzrion.s. Ht cLsktcl abott ltt t'iability o/ Wrsfcr nls Lontrlt.t antl hls possible tmplotnttnt ilirh EO. On EOls rttlutst, tuttl h disrcgard oJWeslcrn in-slr.uc_ lion.s, Coslcllo scn I s(),?1e /r.r nri,n ts.f o r EO v ehicle s dire c tl v- ttt EO. ln addition, Cosrcllo, rrirh EO:s help, sent a competing bil to tt pottnLial \^./eslrm .Llstonler. EO! reprzsent ative t_matlecl
liable lor rhe pal,ments. Was NCS an
EYd.?n actual or apparenilifr
C hu rc h liI616 ro ttrE-iu b co n t ra c t o rs ? D i s c u ss,i uill
-
-,.-
-
