-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Principal / Agent Law rule
- Thread starter Tom Reid
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
You Are Guilty
Senior Member
Tom Reid said:What is the name of your state? Maryland
Can someone please explain the Principal / Agent Law rule.
I tried to find out but had trouble looking it up.
Thank You.
Tom
Still waiting on your explanation of the Kaluza Klein theory first.
Nice try though.
You Are Guilty
Senior Member
Sorry, I'll try to be clearer.
You are asking for someone to condense what takes at least a semester's worth of law school classes into one post. Master/servant law is possible one of the most intricate, given it goes all the way back to the early commonlaw. A summary of it is just not going to happen.
Maybe if you have a specific set of facts you'd care to share, someone might be interested in helping apply agency law to it, but otherwise, you're in for a long wait.
My only point with the Kaluza Klein theory (it deals with quantum physics by the way) was that no one is going to sit here and teach you something that takes months to learn. If you really feel a pressing need to learn about it, there are plenty of text books available to the public which you can read.
You are asking for someone to condense what takes at least a semester's worth of law school classes into one post. Master/servant law is possible one of the most intricate, given it goes all the way back to the early commonlaw. A summary of it is just not going to happen.
Maybe if you have a specific set of facts you'd care to share, someone might be interested in helping apply agency law to it, but otherwise, you're in for a long wait.
My only point with the Kaluza Klein theory (it deals with quantum physics by the way) was that no one is going to sit here and teach you something that takes months to learn. If you really feel a pressing need to learn about it, there are plenty of text books available to the public which you can read.
principle / agent law rule
i was wondering if the principle / agent rule would apply to the following:
What is the name of your state? California
Buyer returned item UPS uninsured no signature req. UPS left at front door not found****************************......
buyer notified me he was sending it back and i agreed to refund. Buyer sent bat back UPS however ups left it at my door when no one was home. i live in a circular open view apartment complex and did not get the package. i know if the U.S. Post Office delivers to door and leaves it, its considered same as signing for it. however, since UPS is private carrier i do not believe the same rule applies.
buyer also failed to insure it. the bat was sold for $10,000 so you would think it would have been insured.
there was no specific "contract" however i did state in writing that "the buyer has 30 days from his date of receipt of the bat to get a full refund" i did not mention anything else about his shipping it back to me other than he should send it via fedex, instead he sent it via UPS who just left it at my door when no one was home.
i am the seller and would have been happy to refund the money, i believe buyer used poor judgement and was negligent not insuring the package. UPS is still trying to trace it and i have little hope. am i liable to refund the buyer even though i did not sign for the package nor find at my door. tracking info on ups site states it was delivered and left at my front door.
am i liable to refund the 10,000 even though buyer shipped item back to me uninsured further compounded by the fact that UPS just left it at my door.
I believe the buyer / shipper was negligent in that he did not send back via fedex as requested, it was sent uninured and no signature was required.
Would the Principle / Agent rule of law apply? Who would be considered the
Principle. I can see me being the Principle when i had sent it out to him insured, i assumed responsibility for sending the package out properly and that it would be received and signed for.
Am i correct in assuming the buyer, when returning it became the principle, and should have used proper and responsible means to insure that it got back
to me safely by being insured and signed for by someone?
Tom
i was wondering if the principle / agent rule would apply to the following:
What is the name of your state? California
Buyer returned item UPS uninsured no signature req. UPS left at front door not found****************************......
buyer notified me he was sending it back and i agreed to refund. Buyer sent bat back UPS however ups left it at my door when no one was home. i live in a circular open view apartment complex and did not get the package. i know if the U.S. Post Office delivers to door and leaves it, its considered same as signing for it. however, since UPS is private carrier i do not believe the same rule applies.
buyer also failed to insure it. the bat was sold for $10,000 so you would think it would have been insured.
there was no specific "contract" however i did state in writing that "the buyer has 30 days from his date of receipt of the bat to get a full refund" i did not mention anything else about his shipping it back to me other than he should send it via fedex, instead he sent it via UPS who just left it at my door when no one was home.
i am the seller and would have been happy to refund the money, i believe buyer used poor judgement and was negligent not insuring the package. UPS is still trying to trace it and i have little hope. am i liable to refund the buyer even though i did not sign for the package nor find at my door. tracking info on ups site states it was delivered and left at my front door.
am i liable to refund the 10,000 even though buyer shipped item back to me uninsured further compounded by the fact that UPS just left it at my door.
I believe the buyer / shipper was negligent in that he did not send back via fedex as requested, it was sent uninured and no signature was required.
Would the Principle / Agent rule of law apply? Who would be considered the
Principle. I can see me being the Principle when i had sent it out to him insured, i assumed responsibility for sending the package out properly and that it would be received and signed for.
Am i correct in assuming the buyer, when returning it became the principle, and should have used proper and responsible means to insure that it got back
to me safely by being insured and signed for by someone?
Tom
Last edited:
You Are Guilty
Senior Member
Ah, see how easy that was?
And in response to your question, there is no master/servant relationship, either express or implied, in your set of facts. (Why you would even care is another issue - it's not your problem it didn't get back to you, it's the buyer's fault).
And in response to your question, there is no master/servant relationship, either express or implied, in your set of facts. (Why you would even care is another issue - it's not your problem it didn't get back to you, it's the buyer's fault).