Cases about Agency, Third-Party Relations, and Formation and Operation of Partnerships

Advanced Business Law
Name
Department
Course
Instructor
Due Date
Advanced Business Law
North Atlantic Instruments, Inc. v. Haber
* Judgment: From the case brief, Haber is guilty of misappropriation and disclosing confidential information.
* Legal Principle: In every employment contract, the employee agrees to keep private any trade secrets or other information acquired while work (Prenkert et al., 2022). 
* Issue (Question of Law): As per the job contract, did Haber divulge private data to a third party? 
* Holding (Answer of Law): It is evident that Haber violated both the Employment Agreement and New York law. 
* Reasoning
* General Analysis: The contract bars all employees from using secret knowledge gained over the course of employment to benefit a rival.
* Applied Analysis: Common logic implies that the customer lists covered by the Employment Agreement in this circumstance must include the disputed client contacts (Prenkert et al., 2022). Haber's obligation not to use his previous employer's trade secrets against him is reinforced by the Employment Agreement.
* Judgment: under the employment agreement, Haber and Apex Company are both guilty.
Treadwell v. J.D. Construction Co.
* Judgment: Mr. Derr is liable for breach of contract, he entered as a agent for J.D. Construction, Co., Inc.
* Legal Principle: A principle is unnamed or unidentified when a third party knows an agent is operating for a principal but does not know the principal's existence (Prenkert et al., 2022). 
* Issue (Question of Law): Is Mr. Derr responsible for damages if he fails to fulfill his obligations under the contract?
* Holding (Answer of Law): Since Mr. Derr did not reveal to the Treadwells that he was an agent, the corporate veil of limited liability is not applicable.
* Reasoning
* General Analysis: An agent should reveal both his status as an agent and the name of his principle in order to prevent personal responsibility on a contract executed on behalf of the principal (Prenkert et al., 2022). 
* Applied Analysis: Derr entered into a contract in favor of J.D. Construction, but the use of an implied label did not reveal his agency affiliation with JCDER, Inc.
* Judgment: The defendant should be liable for damages resulting from the breach of contract.
Synergies3 Tec Services, LLC v. Corvo
* Judgement: DIRECTV and Synergies 3 are not Guilty and the previous ruling should be partly reversed.
* Legal Principle: The doctrine of respondeat superior holds that a principal or an employer is responsible for torts committed by workers who are operating within the extent of their position.
* Issue: Are Synergies3 and DIRECTV responsible for the acts committed by their employees?
* Holding: Since the employee were working beyond their scope of employment, the employers should not be held liable for the torts they commit.
* Reasoning
* General Analysis: The doctrine allows a business owner to be held criminally responsible for a worker or agent's deliberate tort if the claimant can prove that the agent's unlawful acts were committed in the course of the work; or that the actions were committed in continuation of the co...