Manchester Automobile Repair Is A Small Car Repair Shop

Manchester Automobile Repair Is A Small Car Repair Shop The Owner Ja

Manchester Automobile Repair is a small car repair shop. The owner, Jason Chambers, hired Tim Davidson as a mechanic. Tim was not given any authority to act on behalf of the shop. All prices for services are predetermined, and only Jason Chambers can provide estimates to customers for car repairs, purchase supplies for the business, or enter into contracts on behalf of the repair shop. One afternoon, Jason Chambers had to leave the business at noon for an afternoon family event.

Before he left he gave a key to Tim and said, “Please lock up the business at 5 p.m. and bring the key back tomorrow morning.” While Jason is gone, a customer comes to the repair shop to have his car repaired. Tim provides the customer with an estimate of charges for the repair. The customer asks Tim if he can repair the car for less. Tim knows that he is not supposed to negotiate cost, but he doesn’t want to lose a customer, so Tim verbally tells the customer that they can do it for $100 less, and Tim changes the estimate to reflect a cost of $100 less. The customer returns two days later to pick up his car.

When Jason Chambers is processing payment, the customer pulls out his copy of the estimate showing the lesser amount, and calls Tim into the office. Tim confirms that he gave the customer a different cost estimate. Jason Chambers is not happy with Tim’s actions but he does not want to alienate a customer so he processes payment for the lower amount. What are the elements for an agency relationship to be created? Was Tim Davidson an agent of Manchester Automobile Repair? Why or why not? Was the customer entitled to conclude that Tim was an agent of the business? What legal concepts are implicated by these facts?

Paper For Above instruction

The primary focus of this case involves examining whether an agency relationship was created between Manchester Automobile Repair and Tim Davidson, as well as analyzing whether the customer could reasonably believe Tim was acting as an agent of the repair shop. An agency relationship arises when one party (the principal) authorizes another (the agent) to act on their behalf and under their control, with the potential to bind the principal in legal obligations (Farnsworth, 2010). The essential elements for such a relationship include mutual consent, an understanding that the agent is to act on behalf of the principal, and the control exercised by the principal over the agent’s actions (Perillo & Herman, 2014). In this scenario, although Jason Chambers hired Tim Davidson as a mechanic, he explicitly limited Tim’s authority—Tim was not authorized to set prices, negotiate costs, or enter into contractual agreements on behalf of Manchester Automobile Repair. Therefore, the absence of authority to act on behalf of the shop indicates that Tim was not an agent with general authority but perhaps only a servant or employee with limited powers (Hench, 2017).

However, the issue becomes more complex considering the customer’s perception. When Tim provided the repair estimate, and especially when he verbally agreed to a lower price differing from the predetermined estimate, a question arises: did Tim act within the apparent authority that could lead the customer to believe he had agency? Apparent authority occurs when a principal’s conduct leads a third party to reasonably believe that an agent has authority to act on behalf of the principal, even if the agent lacks actual authority (Restatement (Third) of Agency, 2006). Tim’s actions, despite being unauthorized, could be construed as giving the impression that he was authorized, especially since he verbally negotiated and changed the estimate, and the customer saw the completed transaction with the lower amount.

Furthermore, the legal concept of estoppel may come into play, where the actions or conduct of the principal (in this case, the shop owner or manager) create a situation where third parties are led to believe an agency exists. The fact that Tim was trusted with a key and given specific instructions to lock up and return the key might imply some level of authority or at least a lack of clear boundaries, which could contribute to the customer’s reasonable belief that Tim was authorized to act on behalf of the shop.

In conclusion, Tim Davidson was not an agent with actual authority to bind Manchester Automobile Repair in pricing or contractual matters. However, the circumstances suggest that the customer could reasonably believe that Tim was acting as an agent based on his conduct and the representations made, thus creating apparent authority. The implications of these facts invoke legal concepts such as actual authority, apparent authority, agency by estoppel, and the importance of clear boundaries of authority within an employer-employee relationship. From a legal standpoint, the shop owner’s conduct—such as trusting Tim with the key and not clarifying the limits of his authority—may inadvertently induce liability for the business if a third party reasonably believes an agency relationship exists (Farnsworth, 2010; Restatement (Third) of Agency, 2006).

References

References

  • Farnsworth, E. A. (2010). Farnsworth on Contracts. Aspen Publishers.
  • Hench, P. S. (2017). Agency Law and Practice. West Academic Publishing.
  • Perillo, J. M., & Herman, S. (2014). Modern Commercial Law. LexisNexis.
  • Restatement (Third) of Agency. (2006). American Law Institute.
  • Epstein, N. (2018). Business Law: Text and Cases. McGraw-Hill Education.
  • Resnik, S. (2016). Agency Law. Wolters Kluwer.
  • McLaughlin, J. E. (2015). Law of Agency. Thomson Reuters.
  • Cheeseman, H. R. (2020). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues. Pearson.
  • Wade, A., & Forsyth, C. (2018). Commercial & Consumer Law. LexisNexis.
  • Johnston, M. P. (2019). Legal Aspects of Business. Cengage Learning.

Related Assignments