The judgment was for whom and why

Assignment Help Management Theories

Reference no: EM131379154

Castle Fabrics, Inc., sold fabric to Fortune Manufacturers, Inc. A dispute arose as to the acceptability of the fabric received, and Fortune returned the fabric to Castle for full credit. Castle gave Fortune only partial credit and sued Fortune for recovery of its loss. In court, Fortune showed a credit memorandum from a Castle employee indicating that Fortune would be given full credit for the fabric.

Although it was within the regular responsibility of the Castle employee to send the memorandum, on this occasion, management had specifically instructed the employee not to send one. Fortune agrued that the employee was an agent of Castle and thus chargeable with any mistake the agent made.

Castle claimed it was not chargeable with the action of its employee because the employee had disobeyed specific instructions not to send the memorandum. The judgment was for whom and why?

Castle Fabrics, Inc., v. Fortune Furniture Mfrs. Inc., 459 F.Supp. 409 (N.D. MS).

Reference no: EM131379154

Questions Cloud

Describe the distribution as shown in the histogram : Describe the distribution as shown in the histogram. What feature of the problem is more apparent in the histogram than in the scatterplot?

The judgment was for whom and why : When the mill arrived, Ross refused to accept it, stating that it was too small and would not do the job he intended it to do. Clifton brought suit to recover the amount he had spent. The judgment was for whom and why?

Research to evaluate by each of your five criteria : Discuss your overall perceptions of the Research and Writing course thus far. Describe the course concepts that either have seemed familiar or have confused to you.

Identify duties lloyd has violated in relation to principals : He later used these funds to pay for his student loans, his automobile loan, his insurance, his taxes, his outstanding credit card bills, and his barber. Identify the duties that Lloyd has violated in relation to his principals, Parker, Hockenberr..

The judgment was for whom and why : Castle claimed it was not chargeable with the action of its employee because the employee had disobeyed specific instructions not to send the memorandum. The judgment was for whom and why?

What was your rate of return for the three-year period : The coupon rate was 6.5 percent with interest paid semiannually. Today, you sold that bond for $1,089.54. What was your rate of return for the 3-year period, or holding period yield, on this investment?

How did the court find in the dispute : LePage disputed this claim, arguing that the facts did not warrant a finding of agency under any theory. How did the court find in this dispute? Why?

Firms in monopolistic competition can acquire market power : Firms in monopolistic competition can acquire some market power by: Which school of thought calls for more information from government policymakers so that consumers can make more rational economic decisions?

Perform the common sizing technique : Perform the common sizing technique (convert the dollars to percentages). Perform a trend analysis for years 1-3. This information will be used to provide a response to the Discussion Board.

User Account

All Pages