Dennegar Liability Business Law Essay

Total Length: 986 words ( 3 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 6

Page 1 of 3

BUSINESS LAW Business Law: Dennegar LiabilityDennegar’s case is about one person allowing the other to take care of the household finances and handle the mail “in whatever way he chose.” Knuston lived with Dennegar and handled his household finances in which he managed AT&T Universal’s issued credit card. After Knuston was deceased, AT&T sued Dennegar for not paying $14,752.93, which Dennegar said he did not know.The theory under which Dennegar seems liable is the agency theory (Kopp & Brock, 2021). This theory has some key features under which Dennegar appears liable for the charges AT&T said he has to pay. The theory talks about a general agent who acts on behalf of the principal agent. The general agent was Knutson, who acted in support of the principal agent, Dennegar.No formal agreement existed between the two since Dennegar only permitted Knutson to handle his affairs at home and gave full authority in responding to the mails in whichever way he deemed best. It implied that Knutson also did not have to ask for Dennegar’s permit each time he replied to an email. This is exactly what he did when AT&T issued the card and notified him through an email. Here came the play of agency relationship in which the agreement was not there, but still there were operations taking place.Since there was no official contract, the general agent exerted an implied authority on behalf of the principal-agent under this theory. The agent, Knutson, had the power to act in the best interests of the principal agent, Dennegar. The authority was apparent to AT&T since the company was under the impression that if Dennnegar was signing continuous card bills, then he was the one who would be authorized for this very purpose.
The principal-agent relationship between the principal-agent and general agent in Dennegar’s case was the relationship of consent and not the formal agreement or contract. There was no conflict of interest when the two initially decided upon their duties and…

[…… parts of this paper are missing, click here to view the entire document ]

…that the general agent was carrying out on his behalf (Yallew et al., 2018).It is the same problem that is discussed above. Again, there could be two possibilities for which Knutson took the action of replying to AT&T on Dennegar’s behalf and did not tell Dennegar about it. First, he was using inappropriate methods or tools to take advantage of the situation; second, he was unsure of Dennegar’s intentions or purpose for AT&T’s card and responded in the best possible way. The first circumstance is not implied anywhere in the given case. The second circumstance could be understood since Knutson did not tell Dennegar and replied at his discretion.Therefore, under agency theory, it is clarified that the mutual benefit of both the agents, Dennegar and Knutson, existed, and they were both motivated for their concerns (Sherman, 2020). There was an optimization of benefits for both the parties’ utilities (Garcia, Rodriguez-Sanchez & Fdez-Valdivia, 2014). Hence, implied authority and consent for carrying out the principal-agent relationship were there.….....

Show More ⇣


     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Dennegar Liability Business Law" (2021, September 14) Retrieved May 21, 2025, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/dennegar-liability-business-law-2176642

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Dennegar Liability Business Law" 14 September 2021. Web.21 May. 2025. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/dennegar-liability-business-law-2176642>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Dennegar Liability Business Law", 14 September 2021, Accessed.21 May. 2025,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/dennegar-liability-business-law-2176642