Discussion Question/Responses

Discussion Question/Responses (Minimum 100 Word-Count)

1.	Implied agency. You, as an agent/employee, assume you have power to do certain things because that is what your job requires you to do but you've never been given authority to do those things in a verbal or written form. Do you think there could ever be a problem if there is only implied authority to handle that responsibility? What about someone that handles a lot of sensitive information that one obtains from customers and uses it on their behalf. Does anyone see a problem if there is only implied authority to handle that responsibility?

Response:  




2.	Chuck is the landlord of a large rental condominium complex with Sam as his manger.  Sam is authorized to handle all complaints and honor all repair requests on the part of the tenants.  However, Sam has been advised not to collect any rental monies.  The rental monies are to be sent directly to Chuck's chateau.  Despite these specific directions, usually five to seven rental payments are left with Sam at his condominium monthly.  At the holiday party with the renters, Chuck has consistently expressed his satisfaction with Sam's performance and, in fact, calls him repeatedly hi "right hand man."  Does Sam have express or implied authority, and why?

Response: 



3.	Tim, that is a good question, and I will tell you that it does not absolve them from all liability.  Insurance is required these days in a lot of situations.  And that's not just for doctors, but other professionals as well, including attorneys, accountants, architects and many others.  When I practiced in the civil realm, I worked for a law firm that did mostly insurance defense.  And, a majority of that insurance defense was defending attorneys that were insured, as well as some of these other professionals.  Granted, we represented the insurance companies that represented construction companies, security companies and other random companies as well.

For instance, I represented a security company whose employee was an armed security guard at a convenience store.  A person, who just got out of jail, entered the convenience store and took off with two cases of beer.  The armed security guard yelled at the person to stop multiple times.  However, as it was later learned, the person was high on PCP and alcohol and wasn't listening to the armed guard.  So, the armed guard shot the person three times in the back.  Not only was the armed guard charged criminally, the security company was sued by the person that was shot (who survived, but was partially paralyzed).  

What type of tort do you think the lawsuit was filed under and why?  What do you think the outcome was of the lawsuit?

Response:



4.	Justin, you are correct.  The state does make a difference in the scenario.  However, my intention was to change the situation to give rise for a different theory.  

With that, Justin bring up an excellent point, "the gray areas."  There are always gray areas in law.  This allows for interpretation of the law, which is what my job allows for...lucky me.  Judges, attorneys, legislators all interpret the law.Also, sometimes laws conflict each other.  When it comes to a lot of our laws, there is a "fuzziness" or lack of clarity to a law. 

When I do jury trials, I often feel bad because the laws that we are asking the juries to interpret are hopelessly confusing.  

What happens if things are too simple?  A law may read, "killing other people is prohibited."  That law is quite clear and sets out the conduct we intend to prohibit.  But what happens when someone breaks into your home and charges at you and your children with a gun or knife?  If you take aggressive action and shoot back are you in violation of our simple law?  If you take passive action and wait for the bad guy to attack you before fighting back, are you in violation of the law?

One thing to consider is that even though our present legal system is overly complicated and difficult to understand, there is typically a reason for the specialized words, terms, and phrases that each one carries a special meaning.  Simple traffic law even seems complicated.  (When I taught traffic school, students always thought I made up the word "practicable.")

So which direction is better?  Simple or detailed?

Response: