Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers. Answer: Introduction: Australian Agency Law focuses on the equation between the principal and an agent who are entitled to work together. As per the law, it is known as the quasi-contractual relationship that associates a person called the agent who is requested to execute his actions on behalf of another person. The other person being the principal must form legal relations with a third party. Dillon v. Gange held that there must be a mutual consent between both the principal and the agent. However, in a few cases such a relationship is known as an employer and employee relationship (Robert 2013). An agent and principal form the first contract. Such a contract gives authority to the agent to work on his behalf of his principal. Thereafter, follows a second contract, which is created between the principal and the third party due to the activities of the agent. A principal is mostly held liable for the acts committed by his or her agent as observed in the case of Life Assurance Corp v. Pro Golf Association . Therefore, the principal is said to have an additional obligation to guarantee the agent for any sort of payments that have been incurred by the agent. The terms and clauses of the Agency Law have been discussed majorly under the Common Law (Donald 2013). No statutory requirements need to be produced in between the terms of the notice period. As observed from the law an agent has a few specific duties towards the principal that should be carried out. Firstly, an agent is bound to follow the instructions that are provided by the principal. Secondly, an agent should be always be faithful to his or her principal. His work is to act for the best interest of the principal and he should not make any kind of secret revenue from the principal. Thirdly, his duty is to maintain and balance the account of the amounts that are usually paid and received on behalf of the principal. Fourthly, an agent must make use of reasonable skill and techniques to perform any kind of specific task when the principal is not present. Therefore, an agent must always act in due care and negligence. Lastly, the principal must get informed about all the matters and issue that comes to the knowledge of the agent when linked to their agency relationship (Beaupert et al. 2017). For example, an owner of a car may be held liable vicariously because of the negligence caused by an individual to whom the car was loaned (Oliver, Justin and Paul Schoff 2017). Hence, if the owner was a principal and the driver was the agent, he will be held liable for the actions of his agent. Consolo v Bennett states that like an agent, even the principal is bound by certain duties towards his agents. The principal must be present to compensate the agent based on the liabilities that can occur on part of the unauthorized activities of the agent. The principal is also bound to indemnify the agent when services were completed by him on time. In case of a disbursement committed by the agent, it is the duty of the princi pal to reimburse such an agent. The principal should provide necessary cooperation to the agent while he is carrying out his activities. However, the agent is also permitted to recover the expenses that were made during the period of agency. These expenses generally include registration fees and travelling expenses (Eric 2013). It can stated that according to the relationship of the principal and the agent, employers are vicariously liable in relation to the theory of superior doctrine. This concept is generally applicable when the employees in the course of their employment commit negligent activities (Jonathan 2015). When both the employer and employee are in a legal contract, they both have to fulfill their legal duties and act accordingly. The contract formed between them will not be considered to be valid if one of the parties have not failed to carry out his duties. According to the law, there are a few specific cases where the right of indemnity cannot be vested on the agent. There are conditions based on this concept. Firstly, an agent will be committing unauthorized act if he outbursts the functions that was entrusted by the principal. The principal has the right to call the agents actions unauthorized if the principal before did not ratify it. Secondly, the agent will have no right to reimburse if it was an unlawful act, which was carried out by him. Although there are cases when the services performed by the agent to the principal consists of an implied term (Enos, Ryan and Hersh 2015). The agent will not be in a situation to reimburse if such is the situation. However, unlawful acts are not accepted. Thirdly, the agent will be committing a breach of his duties if he acts negligently during the course of his employment. He services rendered by the agent to its principal includes an implied term. Implied terms is present in the agreement where the agent may not be in the situation to ask for remuneration that deserves from the incident. Thus, these a re the basic and general rules of the Agency Law that needs to be applied in the given scenario. From the given scenario, it can be observed that the breeder and carer of an alpaca was Steve. He used to charge $100 per week for taking care of them. Steve was hired by Bianca to take care of her alpaca. Thereafter, formed an agent and principal relationship between Steve and Bianca based on mutual consent. Steve had noticed that one of the pregnant alpacas were not well and was having respiratory trouble. Steve was tensed in such a moment as he was the temporary care taker of the alpaca. He was invested with certain duties that he had to carry out. There was a mutual consent between them and an employer-employee relationship was created. By seeing the alpaca suffer Steve thought of calling Bianca, the owner as it was his duty to inform the principal about the activities (Knapp et al. 2016). Bianca was unavailable and he could not have a word with her regarding the situation. However, being an agent, Steve ensured to inform his principal about his duties so that he is not held liab le later. Seeing the condition of the alpaca getting worse, he took it to the veteran and the doctor suggested that the alpaca needs to get operated (Persson, Sybille and Wasieleski 2015). After hearing so, he tried contacting the principal, Bianca as he was working under his instructions but could not reach her as. She was unavailable throughout the time Steve tried contacting her, He had called at her home, her housekeeper received the call but did not show much interest and attention to what Steve was saying. However, Steve had no other option but to take the alpaca to the veteran as the condition was deteoriating. The veterinarian took the permission from Steve for operating the alpaca and it was a complete success that Steve carried out his duties being the carer of the alpaca. Once Steves principal and the owner of the alpaca returned to take back she found about the operation of the alpaca. Steve cleared and paid all the expenses that were incurred during the operation. When Bianca had arrived to collect the alpaca, she was informed by Steve that an amount of $3500 was paid by him for the operation of alpaca. Steve took all the responsibilities and carried out his duties without committing any kind of unlawful and unauthorized act. Applying the Agency Law, being the agent, Steve was loyal and faithful to the employer who had given him the instructions and carried them out accordingly. The principal is bound to compensate the agent, if there is no fault of the agent and he has carried out his duties within time. If the law is applied in this scenario, Steve had performed his duties as an agent. It was because of Steves sincerity and caring nature that Biancas alpaca got saved. Therefore, Bianca will be held liable for the expenses that were incurred by her agent. She is bound to reimburse Steve. The principals duty is to indemnify the agent based on the account that authorized and the agent for keeping the best interests of the principal executed lawful acts. Conclusion In this regard, it can be concluded stating that the Agency Law needs to be followed and applied in a situation where the relationship of Principal and Agents exist. As observed from the above scenario, it is to be stated that an agent cannot be liable personally. The principal will always be held liable for the activites of the agents. Therefore, it can be concluded by stating that Bianca, the principal will be held liable to pay the amount of $3500 to Steve his agent. References: Beaupert, Fleur, Linda Steele, and Piers Gooding. "Introduction to disability, rights and law reform in Australia: Pushing beyond legal futures."Law in Context35, no. 2 (2017): 1. Chang, Linda, and Jengchung Victor Chen. "Aligning principal and agents incentives: A principalagent perspective of social networking sites."Expert systems with applications41, no. 6 (2014): 3091-3104. Dewing, Jonathan. "Howard Bennett, Principles of the Law of Agency." (2015): 497. Enos, Ryan D., and Eitan D. Hersh. "Party activists as campaign advertisers: The ground campaign as a principal-agent problem."American Political Science Review109, no. 2 (2015): 252-278. Knapp, Charles L., Nathan M. Crystal, and Harry G. Prince.Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law Business, 2016. Langwoort, Donald C. "Agency law inside the corporation: Problems of candor and knowledge."U. Cin. L. Rev.71 (2013): 1187. Oliver, Justin, and Paul Schoff. "Agency and Competition Law in Australia Following ACCC v Flight Centre Travel Group."Journal of European Competition Law Practice8, no. 5 (2017): 321-328. Persson, Sybille, and David Wasieleski. "The seasons of the psychological contract: Overcoming the silent transformations of the employeremployee relationship."Human Resource Management Review25, no. 4 (2015): 368-383. Rasmusen, Eric. "Agency law and contract formation."American Law and Economics Review6, no. 2 (2014): 369-409. Sitkoff, Robert. "An agency costs theory of trust law."Cornell L. Rev.89 (2013): 621. Spanjol, Jelena, Leona Tam, and Vivian Tam. "Employeremployee congruence in environmental values: An exploration of effects on job satisfaction and creativity."Journal of Business Ethics130, no. 1 (2015): 117-130. Tanwar, Karnica, and Asha Prasad. "Exploring the relationship between employer branding and employee retention."Global Business Review17, no. 3_suppl (2016): 186S-206S.