A Commercial Cattle Seller, Case Study Example

Alexander is a commercial cattle seller. Apart from selling the cattle, he also stores bull semen in nitrogen tanks for impregnating cows. Chandler is an independent sales person for ABS Company and sells bull semen to different individuals at defined regions. Chandler, however, does not purchase bull semen for the company. Besides being a sales person for ABS, he is also involved in his private nitrogen supply business.

Alexander entered into an oral contract with Chandler where Chandler agreed to be supplying nitrogen in Alexander’s semen storage tanks in return for a fee. The ABS Company was not involved in the nitrogen supply at that time but allowed Chandler to use the company’s tanks and logos in his dealings with Alexander. Chandler further used other items of the company to present himself as an ABS agent. He used calendars business cards and billing slips.

Later on, one of Alexander’s tank was not supplied with nitrogen and this led to the spoilage of the semen. Alexander, therefore ,filled a case against chandler and ABS for breaching the contract. Alexander alleged that ABS intentionally allowed Chandler to present himself as the agent of the company. Alexander, therefore, relied on this presentation to work with Chandler. The trial court therefore granted ABS a summary judgment which found that there was no agency relationship between ABS and Chandler. Alexander went ahead to appeal on the ruling

Issue

The issue here is to determine whether the circuit court of Bates County made a fair ruling on the Alexander’s suit against  Chandler and ABS. The court found that the suit was not viable since Chandler was not an agent of ABS. Alexander in his petition alleged that Chandler was indeed an agent of ABS and neglected his duty.

Decision

The decision by Alexander to  appeal the case can be justified as he worked with Chandler who presented himself as an agent of ABS. He would therefore associate Chandler with ABS. chandler used items of the company in his tanks and as part of the evidence used, he would not spare ABS in his suit.

Reasoning

It is Alexander who approached Chandler for the supply of nitrogen. He was aware that he does nitrogen supply as an individual business whereas semen supply belongs the company (ABC). He was ignorant and assumed Chandler’s usage of the company’ logos on his tanks. Chandler took the advantage of his company position to market his nitrogen supply business. The ABS company was also aware that Chandler was involved in nitrogen supply business and went further to allow him use the company’s logos in his private business. Even though the court finds no relationship between Chandler and ABS in the nitrogen supply business, both chandler and ABS hold responsibility in the damages. The court bases its ruling on the fact there was no tangible evidence since both agreements were verbal. In the appeal, the court must realize that Chandler is personally responsible for the damages while the company is indirectly responsible for the damages due to negligence.

Observations

By putting all the factors into consideration, it is wise to say that the court did not examine the matter in depth. The ruling was just made on the fact that ABS in not involved in nitrogen supply. The court also did not consider that Chandler’s aim was to expand his business name by using the company’s symbols. The appeal should therefore take place and both sides of the matter examined.

Reference

Bourke, J P, Law cases, Victoria, vol 1 (at Service 95) [3.120]