Dennigar Liability Presentation
Published on Aug 01, 2020
No Description
MORE DECKS TO EXPLORE
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Dennigar Liability Presentation
By: Taylor Fien
Dennigar Liability Presentation
Taylor Fien
August 1, 2020
MBA530: Legal Issues in Business
New England College of Business
Taylor Fien
August 1, 2020
MBA530: Legal Issues in Business
New England College of Business
Photo by Bill Oxford
Welcome
New Century Financial Services Inc. v. Lee B Dennegar
Welcome to this presentation.
Today we will be looking into an appeal case decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey on July 17, 2007. This is the case of New Century Financial Services Inc. v. Lee B Dennegar.
Today we will be looking into an appeal case decided by the Superior Court of New Jersey on July 17, 2007. This is the case of New Century Financial Services Inc. v. Lee B Dennegar.
Photo by Sebastian Pichler
Why or Why not
Should Dennegar be found liable?
Today we will be looking into whether or not Lee Dennegar should be found liable for the charges against him and why.
Photo by Michael D Beckwith
Background
- New Century Financial is suing Dennegar
- Dennegar does not think he owes New Century Financial the money
- Mark Knutson
- Lee Dennegar and Mark Knutson's financial relationship
- Agency Law
New Century Financial Services Inc. is suing Lee Dennegar for failing to pay his credit card bill, for a total of $14,752. The original credit card with AT&T Universal, of which went into collections, where it was assigned to the plaintiff New Century Financial Services. (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2007)
The evidence revealed that the plaintiff had been sending statements to the defendant’s home, and payments were sometimes made to those statements. Dennegar is claiming that he never opened the credit card and has no knowledge of the account; therefore, he should not be entitled to pay back the debt.
The evidence also revealed that the defendant lived with Mark Knutson, whom he allowed to handle the mail and write checks, and forged his name on given occasions. Knutson had passed away, and that is when Dennegar was made aware of debts incurred by Knutson in Dennegar’s name. (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2007)
The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff for $14,752 plus costs claiming that the defendant created the situation where he allowed another person, Knutson, to utilize his financial resources to pay for joint expenses. Whether he or Knutson had opened the account, he was still, in fact, liable because he had previously authorized Knutson to make purchases, and that some of the shopping on the credit card statement was the type of investments that Knutson was allowed to make.
The evidence revealed that the plaintiff had been sending statements to the defendant’s home, and payments were sometimes made to those statements. Dennegar is claiming that he never opened the credit card and has no knowledge of the account; therefore, he should not be entitled to pay back the debt.
The evidence also revealed that the defendant lived with Mark Knutson, whom he allowed to handle the mail and write checks, and forged his name on given occasions. Knutson had passed away, and that is when Dennegar was made aware of debts incurred by Knutson in Dennegar’s name. (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2007)
The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff for $14,752 plus costs claiming that the defendant created the situation where he allowed another person, Knutson, to utilize his financial resources to pay for joint expenses. Whether he or Knutson had opened the account, he was still, in fact, liable because he had previously authorized Knutson to make purchases, and that some of the shopping on the credit card statement was the type of investments that Knutson was allowed to make.
Photo by Math
Is Dennegar Liable?
Yes. Mark Knutson was determined to be Lee Dennigar's agent for the conducting of financial affairs.
The general rule is that a principal is accountable for the conduct of his agent acting within the scope of his authority even though the behavior is unauthorized, and the principle receives no benefit from it. The rule is that though the agent may have deceived the principal and the victim since the principal placed the agent in the position where he had the power to perpetuate the wrong, the principle rather than the innocent third party should bear the loss.
The general rule is that a principal is accountable for the conduct of his agent acting within the scope of his authority even though the behavior is unauthorized, and the principle receives no benefit from it. The rule is that though the agent may have deceived the principal and the victim since the principal placed the agent in the position where he had the power to perpetuate the wrong, the principle rather than the innocent third party should bear the loss.
Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm
What does Agency mean?
Mr. Knuston was deemded Mr. Dennegars Agent.
According to the Business Law and Legal Environment textbook, an agent is a person who acts in the name of and on behalf of another, having been given and assumed some degree of authority. (Mayer, Warner, Siedel, & Lieberman, 2017)
The existence of agents does not, however, require a whole new law of torts or contracts. A tort is no less harmful when committed by an agent; a deal is no less binding when negotiated by an agent. (Muller, 2018)Just because both Knutson and Dennegar did not sign a contract does not mean that he was not acting as his agent. When Mr. Dennegar willingly let Mr. Knutson manage the household financials and general office functions concerned with maintaining the house that they shared, Mr. Dennegar entered into an agency with Mr. Knutson.
The existence of agents does not, however, require a whole new law of torts or contracts. A tort is no less harmful when committed by an agent; a deal is no less binding when negotiated by an agent. (Muller, 2018)Just because both Knutson and Dennegar did not sign a contract does not mean that he was not acting as his agent. When Mr. Dennegar willingly let Mr. Knutson manage the household financials and general office functions concerned with maintaining the house that they shared, Mr. Dennegar entered into an agency with Mr. Knutson.
Photo by Dave Dugdale
Types of Agents
- General Agent
- Special Agent
- Agency coupled with interest
- Subagent
- Servant
There are five different types of Agents within the Agency Law. The general agent, special agent, agency coupled with an interest, subagent, servant, and independent contractor. Each type of agent all performs different duties. (Mayer, Warner, Siedel, & Lieberman, 2017) In the case of Knutson and Dennegar, Mark Knutson would be considered a special agent. He was given authority by Mr. Dennegar to act on specific designated instances, which were the household financial affairs.
The law of agency rules the internal relationship between principal and agent, thereby imposing specific duties on the representative. (Leow, 2019) Mr. Knutson had no income, and Mr. Dennegar paid all of the bills. Knutson handled all of the household maintenance and financials, which was an agreement in their relationship. The judge found that the defendant ceded his authority over incoming mail, his checkbook, and his finances, finding that Knutson was authorized by the defendant to obtain and use the credit card as part of their agency agreement, Mr. Dennegar liable.
The law of agency rules the internal relationship between principal and agent, thereby imposing specific duties on the representative. (Leow, 2019) Mr. Knutson had no income, and Mr. Dennegar paid all of the bills. Knutson handled all of the household maintenance and financials, which was an agreement in their relationship. The judge found that the defendant ceded his authority over incoming mail, his checkbook, and his finances, finding that Knutson was authorized by the defendant to obtain and use the credit card as part of their agency agreement, Mr. Dennegar liable.
Photo by Austin Distel
Conclusion
In this case, the judge deemed that Knutson was Mr. Dennegars agent, and because of Agency Law, Mr. Dennegar is found liable and does owe New Century Financial Services Inc the charged-off credit card amount of $14, 752. (Superior Court of New Jersey, 2007)
Photo by Bill Oxford
References
- Dimitriu, C. (2017). Agency law and odious debts. Ethics & Global Politics, 10(1), 77-97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2017.1389220
- Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
Dimitriu, C. (2017). Agency law and odious debts. Ethics & Global Politics, 10(1), 77-97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2017.1389220
Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
References
- HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
- Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Dimitriu, C. (2017). Agency law and odious debts. Ethics & Global Politics, 10(1), 77-97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2017.1389220
Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
References
- Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
- NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
Dimitriu, C. (2017). Agency law and odious debts. Ethics & Global Politics, 10(1), 77-97. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16544951.2017.1389220
Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
Don Mayer, Daniel Warner, George Siedel, and Jethro K. Lieberman. (2017). Business Law and the Legal Environment. Boston, MA: FlatWorld
HG Legal Resources. (2020). Agency Law - Agent Law. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.hg.org/agency-law.html
Leow, R. (2019). UNDERSTANDING AGENCY: A PROXY POWER DEFINITION. The Cambridge Law Journal, 78(1), 99-123. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0008197318000971
Müller-Freienfels, W. (2018, April 13). Agency. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.britannica.com/topic/agency-law
NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lee B. DENNEGAR, Defendant-Appellant., 1 FindLaw (Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. July 17, 2007).
