Homework 3a: There Are Two Components To This Week's Homewor

Homework3a B There Are Two Components To This Weeks Homeworkyou Ru

This homework consists of three distinct parts:

  1. Application of agency principles to contracts at a paper mill involving an employee's authority and liability.
  2. Liability analysis for a company following an employee's theft and resulting injury to a pedestrian.
  3. Calculation of overtime pay for a nonexempt employee working varying hours over four weeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Paper For Above instruction

The first component of this homework requires analyzing agency law principles through a scenario involving an employee, Delilah, who returns with contracts instead of the expected wood pulp. The key issues involve determining the liability of the employer and Delilah for each contract based on her authority and the knowledge of the third parties involved.

Within agency law, an agent's authority can be categorized as either actual authority—express or implied—or apparent authority. Actual authority arises from the explicit or implied consent of the principal, permitting the agent to act on their behalf. Apparent authority, on the other hand, exists when a third party reasonably believes that the agent has authority due to the principal's representations or conduct.

In the case of Delilah, her actions are within her scope of authority when she contracts with Evon, Felipe, and Giorgio. Evon, who knew Delilah’s employment status and her authority to act for the paper mill, would lead to the employer (the principal) being liable for her contracts based on actual authority. Since Delilah acted within her scope, the principal’s liability would also apply in her dealings with Evon.

Regarding Felipe, who knew Delilah was acting on behalf of someone yet did not know whom, the principle of agency suggests that the principal may still be liable if Felipe reasonably believed Delilah possessed authority, and if Delilah indeed had such authority or if the principal's conduct created the appearance of authority. Because Felipe knew Delilah was acting for an entity but not whom, the employer might still be liable if Felipe reasonably believed Delilah had authority to bind the principal. This case emphasizes the importance of actual authority and the reliance placed on apparent authority in establishing liability.

Contrastingly, Giorgio did not know Delilah was acting on anyone’s behalf. Under agency law, if a third party has no knowledge that the agent is acting on behalf of a principal, the principal generally cannot be liable for the agent's contracts because there is no apparent authority. However, Delilah herself would be liable on the contracts she made because she acted outside her authority and without the knowledge of Giorgio, who did not reasonably believe she had authority.

Turning to the second scenario involving Hotspur's theft of wood pulp and subsequent injury to a pedestrian, the liability of the employer depends on whether Hotspur was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the injury. Under respondeat superior, an employer can be held liable for damages caused by an employee if the employee’s actions were within the scope of their employment and for a purpose related to their job.

If Hotspur’s theft of the pulp was unauthorized and outside his scope of employment, and his running down the pedestrian was a personal act not connected to his employment duties, the employer may argue they are not liable. However, if Hotspur’s attempt to impress the employer and secure resources was deemed a form of job-related initiative, the employer could potentially be held liable for the injury under the doctrine of respondeat superior, especially if Hotspur’s act of theft was consequential to his employment responsibilities or was conducted within the scope of his employment duties.

In the case of a lawsuit by the pedestrian, recovery against the company hinges on whether Hotspur’s acts were within his scope of employment. Courts typically consider whether the act was authorized, whether it was motivated by a purpose to serve the employer, and whether it occurred within the time and space limits of employment (Hunt v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 1993). If liability is established, the company could be responsible for damages resulting from the injury.

The third component focuses on overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As a nonexempt employee, any hours worked over 40 in a week are generally eligible for overtime pay at one and a half times the regular rate. The hours worked over four weeks are: 45, 42, 39, and 31 hours.

Calculating weekly overtime: in the first week, working 45 hours means 5 hours of overtime; in the second week, 2 hours; in the third week, no overtime (39 hours); and in the fourth week, no overtime (31 hours). Overall, the total overtime hours amount to 7 hours (5 + 2 + 0 + 0).

The rate of overtime pay is typically 1.5 times the regular rate of pay. Assuming the regular rate is known (say, $20 per hour for illustration), the overtime rate would be $30 per hour. Thus, the total overtime compensation would be 7 hours × $30 = $210. This calculation demonstrates the importance of adhering to wage and hour laws, ensuring adequate compensation for extra hours worked.

In conclusion, understanding agency principles is vital in delineating liability for contracts formed by employees. Employers are liable when agents act within their scope of authority and the third parties are unaware of any lack of authority. Liability also extends to actions taken within scope during employment, as with Hotspur's case, though exceptions exist depending on the nature of the employee's conduct. Additionally, compliance with the FLSA ensures fair compensation for nonexempt employees, requiring meticulous calculation of overtime pay based on hours worked beyond 40 per week.

References

  • Farbey, B. (2020). Business Law and the Regulation of Business. Cengage Learning.
  • Holland, W. (2019). Law of Agency. West Academic Publishing.
  • Leathers, P. R. (2018). Business Law: Text and Cases. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • McLaughlin, E. (2021). Employment Law. Routledge.
  • O'Neill, W. (2017). Labor Law: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press.
  • U.S. Department of Labor. (n.d.). Fair Labor Standards Act. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/flsa
  • Schwartz, M. S. (2019). Business Law and the Regulation of Business. Cengage.
  • Sealy, LL. (2020). Company and Partnership Law. Oxford University Press.
  • Wright, S. (2018). Agency Law in Business. LexisNexis.
  • Yadron, D. (2021). Legal Principles in Business. Sage Publications.

Related Assignments