Under what theory could Dennegar be liable for the charges?
Kevin Walsh

Dennegar and Knutson

Dennegar and Knutson

Dennegar and Knutson

Agency Theory- 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 to do so (Mayer et. al, 2017).

Implied or Express Authority

Implied or Express Authority

-Clear authorization
-Easiest to recognize
-Guardian/Minor

(Moulton &McLennan 2004),(Mayer et. al, 2017)

Apparent Authority

A principal enlists an agent to carry out the principal's goals, presumably because the agent enjoys some comparative advantage in performing the goals. Inevitably, however, the agent's interests diverge from the principal's; if the agent's goals diverge sufficiently, the agent may be said to have a conflict of interest. Notably, the risk that such a conflict (such a divergence in goals) will be material - will impair the principal - increases when the asymmetry of information tilts in the agent's favor (Yukins, 2010).

To mitigate that conflict of interest - to keep the agent aligned with the principal's goals - the principal relies upon supervisory strategies sometimes known as monitoring and bonding. Monitoring is what it sounds like: it is the principal's efforts to monitor what the agent is doing, to ensure that the agent pursues the principal's ends. Bonding, in contrast, was classically understood in agency theory to refer to voluntary, largely contractual self-constraints on the agent's discretion (Yukins, 2010).

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 conduct is unauthorized and the principal receives no benefit from it...The reason for the rule is that though the agent may have deceived the principal, as well as the victim since the principal placed the agent in the position where he had the power to perpetuate the wrong, the principal rather than the innocent third party, should bear the loss (Fisher, n.d)

Conclusion
1. No conflict of interest
2. Benefit
3. Willing and lawful agent

References

• Bohren, O. (1998). The agent's ethics in the principle-agent model: JBE JBE. Journal of Business Ethics, 17(7), 745-755. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/198121882?accountid=33575
• FISHER, J.A.D. (n.d.). NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC v. DENNEGAR. Retrieved from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1263011.htm...

References

• Mayer, D., Warner, D., Siedel, G., Lieberman, J., K. (2017, March). Business Law and the Legal Environment, v. 2.0. Flat World knowledge. ISBN: 978-1-4533-8390-2
• Moulton, A., & McLennan, R. (2004). Questions concerning agents. The Canadian Appraiser, 48(3), 38. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/208354049?accountid=33575

References

• Yukins, C. R. (2010). A VERSATILE PRISM: ASSESSING PROCUREMENT LAW THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL-AGENT MODEL. Public Contract Law Journal, 40(1), 63-86. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/817557859?accountid=33575