I will pay for the following essay Agency,innkeepers doctrine,and liquor licensing law. The essay is to be 8 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.Download file

I will pay for the following essay Agency,innkeepers doctrine,and liquor licensing law. The essay is to be 8 pages with three to five sources, with in-text citations and a reference page.

(a) Worf (the "third party") cannot enforce the contract against Picard (the "principal") because Riker (the "agent") acted outside its actual authority and against the instructions of the principal. In the given problem, the named principal instructed the agent to negotiate for the wine collection with a limit of $200,000 but the agent contracted, in violation of the named principal's instructions, with the third party in an amount of not less than $220,000 for the wine. If a principal is disclosed and named, and the agent acts out outside its actual or apparent authority, then only the agent is liable to the third party. Hence, Worf cannot enforce the contract against Picard.(b) No, the answer would still be the same even if the agent had not informed the third party of the name of the principal because the agent acted outside its actual authority and against the instructions of the unnamed principal. In the given problem, the unnamed principal instructed the agent to negotiate for the wine collection with a limit of $200,000 but the agent contracted, in violation of the unnamed principal's instructions, with the third party in an amount of not less than $220,000 for the wine. If a principal exists but the name of the principal is not disclosed, and the agent acts out outside its actual or apparent authority, then only the agent is liable to the third party. Hence, Worf cannot enforce the contract against Picard.(c)...

In the given problem, the principal instructed the agent to negotiate for the wine collection with a limit of $200,000 but the agent contracted, in violation of the named principal's instructions, with the third party in an amount of not less than $220,000 for the wine. Specifically, the principal in the given problem has the following causes of action: (1) for rescission of the agency agreement, (2) refusal to pay the agent commission or the flat fee for the agent's services, (3) a claim for damages, (4) a cause of action for the recovery of secret commission (the 'gift' of four cases of rare vintage wine accepted by the agent), and (5) criminal charges for accepting a secret commission in the form of a 'gift' of four cases of rare vintage wine. Picard, therefore, has several causes of action against Riker.

(e) Should the principal in the given problem voluntarily chose to accept the agreement concluded by his agent and the third party, Picard will be deemed to have ratified the acts of his agent. Under the legal principle of ratification, where an agent enters into a contract without any authority, the principal can ratify the action. or where an agent enters into a contract for an existing principal and in so doing exceeds its authority, the principal can ratify the action. The principal's ratification of the agents acts, however, are subject to the following conditions for a valid ratification: (1) when contracting, the agent must be clearly acting as an agent, not personally, and the third party must be aware that they are acting as an agent. (2) the principal must exist when the agent contracts.