Business Law: case of Ginn versus Renaldo

Running head: BUSINESS LAW Business Law Name: University: Course: Tutor: Date: Business Law 29.1 Ginn v. Renaldo, Inc. The case of Ginn versus Renaldo, Inc is about agency which relates to existence of a relationship between principal and agent. In an agency relationship, the agent has the right to act on behalf of the principle in accordance with implied and express terms of the contract (Akdere, & Azevedo, 2006). The issue in respect to the case of Ginn and Renaldo is whether the unidentified patron who made Ginn to suffer injuries was an agent of the nightclub. In this case, the unidentified patron was an agent of necessity as he acted without the consent of Renaldo the night club owner. The law in certain circumstances such as in the case of Ginn versus Renaldo confers authority on a person to act as an agent for another in order to prevent the principal from suffering loss. The unidentified patron thus aimed at protecting the property of the night club and thus prevented Ginn from entering. 29.5 Bolus v. United Penn Bank The case of Bolus versus United Penn Bank is about apparent agency which relates to a situation whereby the principal indicates to a third party that an agent has the authority to act in implied or express terms on behalf of the principal (Wilson, 2000). The third party then relies in good faith upon the authority provided by the principal. In the case of Bolus versus United Penn Bank, Bolus took the right step to sue the bank and he has the highest chances of wining the case. The act by Ziobro to orally agree that the bank would offer funding to Bolus was a valid consideration for a contract since he was an administrator of the bank. The act of the bank to take Bolus assets as a way of compensation was unlawful and he had the right to sue the financial institution for damages after recovering back his assets. 30.3 Production Finishing Corporation v. Shields The case of production Finishing Corporation versus Shields is a...