Reference no: EM133201595 , Length: 3 pages

JUDGMENT

Jesse Derr (defendant) should bear personal responsibility. When the agent interacts with a third party, if the third party knows that the agent is acting for the principal, but does not notify the principal's identity, the principal's identity is unknown. (Restatement (Third) of Agency, § 1.04 comment b (2006)). Jesse Derr (defendant), as the client, did not disclose information about himself as client to Treadwells (plaintiff). According to the law, Jesse Derr (defendant) should be personally responsible for the performance of the contract signed by the non-existent client JD Construction, Co., Inc.

LEGAL PRINCIPLE
A. Issue
Whether the court should sign a contract and claim to act on behalf of a corporate entity that he knows does not exist, whether to bear personal liability contracts for damages caused by failure to perform the contract correctly.
B. Holding
Affirmative

Reasoning
A. General Analysis
Jesse Derr (defendant) created JCDER Inc. to run his construction business, but without informing Maine's Secretary of State, J.D. Construction Co. Inc was used as the company name to conduct his business. When accepting the business of Treadwells (plaintiff), Jesse Derr (defendant) hired a subcontractor to carry out the work. However, when the company did not make money, Jesse Derr (defendant) chose to give up his job, resulting in the lack of Treadwells's house. Completed and caused losses. Jesse Derr (defendant) did not inform Treadwells (plaintiff) that he was an agent of JCDER Inc. while acting as an agent but concealed his identity as an agent. However, when the agent interacts with a third party, if the third party knows that the agent is acting for the principal, but does not notify the identity of the principal, the identity of the principal is unknown. Jesse Derr (defendant) should be held responsible.

B. Applied Analysis
Jesse Derr (the defendant) concealed from Treadwells (the plaintiff) that he was an agent of J.D. Construction Co. and JCDER, in violation of the agent law, and a third party should be made aware of the identity of Jesse Derr's agent. Jesse Derr (the defendant) caused huge losses to Treadwells (the plaintiff). Should abide by the agency law, disclose the identity of his agent to Treadwell (plaintiff) and assume personal responsibility.

JUDGMENT
Jesse Derr, J.D. Construction Co. and JCDER (the defendant) should share the responsibility. According to the agent law, they concealed the identity of Jesse Derr as an agent from each other. In addition, J.D. Construction Co. and JCDER profited from this behavior, and Jesse Derr shall bear full personal responsibility for the losses caused by Treadwells.

I. JUDGMENT
Synergies3 and DIRECTV shall not be liable for compensation. First of all, the behavior of McLaughlin and Castro is personal and does not bring benefits to the employer, nor is it something that the employer tacitly approves. There is no evidence that the theft or conversion was for the benefit of Synergies3 or DIRECTV or to promote their benefit. Synergies3 and DIRECTV have no direct or indirect responsibility. McLaughlin and Castro should compensate Corvo and Bonds separately.

II. LEGAL PRINCIPLE
A. Issue
Whether the court should rule on the employer when it is unaware of the personal behavior of the employee?
B. Holding
No
III. Reasoning
A. General Analysis
Corvo and Bonds sued McLaughlin, Castro, DIRECTV and Synergies3 Tec Services. They believe that McLaughlin and Castro were stealing and conversions with the acquiescence of their employers. But the actions of McLaughlin and Castro were carried out without the employer's knowledge and did not generate benefits for DIRECTV and Synergies3. DIRECTV and Synergies3 should not be held indirectly or directly responsible for the personal actions of McLaughlin and Castro.

B. Applied Analysis
When McLaughlin and Castro stole, it was their personal behavior. It was an act that was carried out suddenly while doing work, and there was no plan. Moreover, this violated the direct order of the employer and did not get the acquiescence of the employer. They steal for their own benefit, but the employer will not profit from the theft. Therefore, there is no indirect or joint liability.

IV. JUDGMENT
McLaughlin and Castro should compensate Corvo and Bonds and be responsible for the theft. This is their personal behavior. At the same time, they also violated the contract signed with the employer. DIRECTV and Synergies3 do not need to pay additional compensation for employees' personal actions in breach of contract, because they did not profit from this matter, so there is no indirect liability.

problem cases: 2

Ms. Opp will lose the case. Ms. Opp believes that Soraghan has not obtained her consent to the limitation of liability. Because Mr. Opp signed the contract but did not consult Ms. Opp's opinion on limitation of liability. According to the illinos law, there is a two-part test for determining whether a principal-agent relationship exists: the principal must have the right to control the manner and method in which work is carried out by the alleged agent. Obviously, Ms. Opp has the right to control the way and methods of Mr. Opp's actions related to property transportation, so there is an agency relationship between them. When the third party has reason to believe that the principal has authorized the agent to act as its agent, the agent has the authority.

problem cases: 3

According to the relationship of the third party, one party appoints the other party to carry out its business activities. Party A who entrusts Party B is called the principal, and Party B who entrusts Party B to conduct business operations of the principal is the agent called the principal. In the relationship with a third party, the principle is that the principal completes the work from the agent, and the agent gets paid for his work. In the relationship with a third party, in principle, the principal is fully responsible for the agent's actions. In this case, PD is AQ's agent, and AQ must bear the losses caused by his agent PD. Therefore, the insurance company shall not be liable to claim compensation from AQ after knowing the facts. So, Virginia Surety is right.