acijku2 wrote: TheWalrus wrote:
acijku2 wrote:For anyone who did the practice written exam today . . . for question number 1, I was under the impression, and the outlines and lecture notes seem to say, that apparent authority is a concept used when deciding whether a principal is liable for an agent's breach of contract only. Do all the authority rules also apply to torts committed by the agent?
And that like the outlines, that link says apparent authority is an issue with contract liability to the principal. In question 1, the issue is tort liability to the principal and the model answer mentions apparent authority.
The lecture notes and CMR do a really bad job of explaining this (in that they don't), but this is from the restatement (3rd) of agency (copied from here https://sites.google.com/site/kubusines ... -principal
A principal is subject to direct
liability to a third party harmed by an agent's conduct when agent acts with actual authority, principal is negligent in controlling/hiring the agent, or principal delegates performance of a duty to use care to protect other persons or their property to an agent who fails to perform the duty.
A principal is subject to vicarious
liability to a 3rd party harmed by an agent's conduct if the agent is an employee acting within scope of employment, OR the agent commits a tort when acting with apparent authority in dealing with a third party or purportedly on behalf of the principal.
The direct vs. vicarious liability distinction is a negligible one. I wouldn't worry too much. In any event, whenever an agency question comes up I'd try to put at least something down about authority if it seems at all implicated (e.g., facts give rise to a question about apparent authority).