9. Melvin was employed as a security guard for Southwest Utilities Corporation.
ID: 2747172 • Letter: 9
Question
9. Melvin was employed as a security guard for Southwest Utilities Corporation. Melvin's job was to guard a fenced-in area and to use force to keep intruders from climbing the fence to enter Southwest Utilities' distribution center. Melvin's working hours were from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. At about 11:00 P.M. one evening, Melvin drove past Southwest Utilities and saw someone climbing the fence that Melvin guarded during the day. Melvin stopped his car, ran up to the fence, pulled the intruder off of it, and beat him up. The intruder sued Southwest Utilities Corporation for Melvin's assault and battery. Which of the following is most likely to be the court's verdict?
A. Southwest Utilities is directly liable because Melvin was an employee of the corporation at the time of the incident
B. Southwest Utilities is not liable because Melvin didn't act within the scope of his employment
C. Southwest Utilities is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, since Melvin was an employee
D. Southwest Utilities is not liable for the intentional torts committed by its employees
10. Ted hired Dave to act as his sales agent in his used furniture store. Ted expressly authorized Dave to negotiate the price of any item up to $2,500 without checking with him; however, if the price was over $2,500, Dave was to check with Ted before making a sale. One day, a customer wanted to buy a used bedroom set a price of $3,500, which Bruce sold it to him without first checking with Ted. When Ted learned of this, he was upset because the price was a mistake; it should have been marked at $5,000. Ted asked the customer to return the bedroom set. Is the customer required to return the bedroom set in this case?
A. Yes, because Dave did not have express authority to sell the bedroom set
B. No, because Dave did have apparent authority to sell the bedroom set
C. None of the above answers is correct.
D. No, because Dave did have implied authority to sell the bedroom set-
E. Yes, because Dave did not have implied authority to sell the bedroom set
Explanation / Answer
Ans 9
B. Southwest Utilities is not liable because Melvin didn't act within the scope of his employment
Ans 10
B.B. No, because Dave did have apparent authority to sell the bedroom set.
Apparent authority is a situation where a reasonable third party would understand that an agent had authority to act. This means a principal is bound by the agent's actions, even if the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.