Agency and Franchising, Essay Example

Bright Lighting Company defended itself by imputing that its agent Curran was authorized to act for them the principal and she had obtained from Watts a written order for a generator on July2. the written order constitute a contract, because it was signed by Watts, authorizing them to fill the request. They also argued before the judge that they supplied the order in good faith and are legally entitled to payment. Additionally they contend that they receive no communication regarding cancellation until after the shipment was delivered and had incurred shipping cost to and from the destination point.

The company through its attorney also told the judge that they had already paid commission of 15% to their dependent agent, and was entitled to a refund on that plus another 15% penalty for filling the order, as well as all the attendant cost from the defendant.

Watts through his attorney made it plain to the judge that he regarded agent Curran as the principal at the time of the signing of the contract and also at the cancellation which was done verbally. It was not his fault that the order was still delivered, and agent Curran is totally responsible for not informing her principal.

He also went on to point out that it was within his constitutional rights to cancel an order, regardless of his financial position at the time, and that was what he had done in this specific case. To reinforce the point he told the judge that he had cancel several orders of similar values, with other companies before and did not have to attend court.

Agent Curran has failed to exercise due care by not informing her principal regarding the cancellation of the contract, because of selfish and personal financial, and because she failed, the contract is null and void as far as he was concerned.

The judge after careful consideration ruled in favor of Watts, because the verbal cancellation given to Curran, was regarded as given tom Bright Lighting Company, and hence there was no contact available at the time of delivery of the generator. Watts was perfectly correct in not receiving the generator and is absolved of all expenses.

However Bright Lighting Company will have to pay the cost of the court hearing, and should seriously consider the employment future of its dependent agent, who had breached her fiduciary responsibilities, in order to ensure financial gain from the sales of the machine.

Reference

West Encyclopedia of American Law, 2005, 2ⁿd edition Contract with America, comm.-dorpp167-168

Mann& Roberts, 2004, Essentials of Business, pp., 268, 291, 308, 546-553, Thompson, South Western