The law of agency deals with the relationship between an agent and principle. It may include quasi-contractual, contractual, and non-contractual fiduciary associations. Depending on the situation, the principle can be held liable to specific agent’s malpractices. In brief recap, the principle represents a person who provides legal authority to another individual to do transactions on his or her behalf in a commercial set up. On the other hand, the agent is someone who has direct dealing with the third party; mostly working as an extension of the principle. Considering the common law, the agency relationship may be actual, inherent, or apparent; therefore, Dr. Steven may be held liable for some of Dr. Mercer’s practices depending on the situation under concern.
In the first circumstance, the two doctors share the same premise and appeared to utilize the same massage therapist. It suggests an outward manifestation that Dr. Mercer and Dr. Stevens were partners. Referring to the common law, the partners are often inherent agents of their roles in partnership. However, the creation of a partnership is prevented by the fact that they operated differently, and did not share the profit from operating the injured patient. Note that partnership requires that the persons in association should share out the accrued revenue from the business operation ( Orts, 2013) . There is no doubt that the patient should have a reasonable belief in the fact that Dr. Stevens and Dr. Mercer were partners. The facts do not disclose they were partners and that the same manifestation was not made available to the patient before the treatment procedures. Therefore, in this situation, Dr. Steven is not in any way Dr. Mercer’s principle, and she is not liable for the alleged malpractices.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the second circumstance, there is a sign that Dr. Steven had given a go-ahead sign to Dr. Mercer to order medical equipment from Chiro-Co firm. Even if it was a one-time thing, it is an apparent manifestation that Dr. Mercer could proceed to act as her agent and order things on her behalf. It is on record of having directed the sales agent at the Chiro-Co that Dr. Mercer could order items in her absence. Notably, the sales agent did not know whether it was a onetime thing because she did not specify the same. The bottom line of events is that Dr. Stevens had made a manifestation that Dr. Mercer could order items on her behalf-knowledge unlimited in vendors’ perspective. Consequently, Dr. Stevens created an apparent agency; therefore, he will be liable to Chiro-Co for all the orders made.
In circumstance three, under the respondeat superior principle, the employer is totally liable to all acts and omissions committed by the employee as long as they are done within the employment scope ( Clarkson, Miller, & Cross, 2014) . In this case, Dina, a massage therapist, is said to be an independent contractor. Therefore, Dr. Steven would not be accountable for her tortious acts. However, concerning the status of employment, it is not only determined by the agreement between the contractor and the contracting party. It primarily depends on the ability of the employer to have full control of the employees work performance ( Liu, Yao, & Hu, 2012) . In most states, laws require that a doctor should maintain the services offered by their workers. In this case, it is not clear whether Dina is a misclassified employee. However, if the sexually mistreated patients can demonstrate that Dina was actually working for Dr. Stevens, in such a way that Dr. Steven had full control in her manner of operation, then Dr. Steven can be held liable for Dina’s acts.
The law of agency and liability assists in determining responsibility issues arising between the principal and agent. Dr. Steven is exonerated by the fact that there was no evidence of profit sharing in their partnership with Dr. Mercer. However, in the second situation, she is held liable because of the statement she apparently made to let Dr. Mercer obtain items from Chiro-Co. In the last event, Dr. Steven cannot be held liable to Dina’s tortious acts, unless Dina can prove that she was actually Dr. Steven’s employee.
References
Clarkson, K., Miller, R., & Cross, F. (2014). Business Law: Texts and Cases . Nelson Education.
Liu, C., Yao, L. J., & Hu, N. (2012). Improving ethics education in accounting: Lessons from medicine and law. Issues in Accounting Education , 27 (3), 671-690.
Orts, E. W. (2013). Business persons: A legal theory of the firm . Oxford University Press.
