Flash V. Illumination Industries Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Flash V. glow Industries - Essay ExampleIn the matter of the wrongful price character of the computerized board, the legal team deems the contact entered into between Flash and mackintosh as being invalid since Mack does not have express government agency to enter into such a contract. This argument is based upon the righteousness of agency in which Mack as a contractor does not have actual authority for actions undertaken. Relevant Rules Under the law of agency, Mack is an nonparasitic contractor. Mack is a special agent since he undertakes specific assignments for illumination Industries upon request. The general principle applied in agency law is that a of import is liable for actions undertaken by the agent if the actions fall within the authority of the agent to enter into such agreements. The bring out of authority is thus of utmost importance in determining liability of the pass in contracts or actions entered into by the agent. The agent may have authority as a result of express bestowal or through implication. In tort litigation the third party cannot claim any reparation from the principal unless it can be proved that the agents actions were within the scope of authority in the contract. Express actual authority entails that the agent has been explicitly given authority to undertake actions on behalf of the principal. in that location is also the principle of implied actual authority. This is the authority that the contractor has to have if he is to perform his obligations in the requisite manner. This is exemplified in Ireland v. Livingstone in which the court ruled that the principal is only liable to actions which are expressly authoritative by the contract. The principle of implied actual authority is however subject to personal opinion. In the matter of whether Illumination Industries ought to pay for the negligent acts of Mack, the defense team relies upon the principle of independent contractors. The principal is in law not vicario usly liable for the negligent actions of the agent since the principal lacks the critical relationship found under employer employee. The principal would not be able to exercise the supervisory and control function in the instance of an independent contractor. There is however exceptions to this rule in instances where the actions of the contractor results into injury to a person in the very property of the principal the contractors work involves potentially dangerous activity and in instances in which the principal acted in a manner to suggest the contractor was an employee or an agent. Arguments Under the law of agency, Illumination Industries is not liable for actions undertaken by Mack since Mack is an independent contractor. Mack is an independent contractor since the record of his work with Illumination industries is intermittent and he decides on what kinds of jobs to accept. Mack as an independent contractor does not have the authority to make quotations on the prices of g oods which Illuminating Industries is to pay since he does not have the precedent of agent. The plaintiff may however argue that Illuminating industries had delegated authority to Mack in order to assoil the job. In arguing that the job in its entirety had been delegated to Mack the plaintiffs fail to take into consideration that nigh aspects of agency such as the monetary aspects cannot be implied. This aspect of the independent contractor must be expressly provided by the principal and should not be by implication. In the matter