7 ms·

If I authorize an agent to act on my behalf in a particular way wouldn't they be considered and authorized as me? If I make a contract with Bob to mow my lawn,

If I authorize an agent to act on my behalf in a particular way wouldn't they be considered and authorized as me? If I make a contract with Bob to mow my lawn, it's not like Bob's workers or employees have to sign the contract too. TPG shouldn't need to be party to the contract to be an agent of one of the contracted parties.

backtoyoujim 5y ago
How does that logic apply to people that sublet rental spaces ?
- alexpotato 5y ago
  Some leases specify that sub letting is not allowed and doing some would put the original tenant in breach of the lease agreement.
  - dylan604 5y ago
    I'd even say most leases vs some, especially regarding residential. Buying a house for the purposes of renting requires different financing (although most are being bought for cash) than a typical homeowner's financing which has clauses that says the person receiving the financing will use the address as their primary residence. These things get ridiculously specific.
- adrianba 5y ago
  Subletting isn't an agency relationship. It's not like tenants provide a service to landlords by occupying the property as well as paying rent. Also, the law around real property including leases is different and more involved than straightforward contractual relationships.
gowld 5y ago
What happens if you hire someone to be your agent at your job?
- Glyptodon 5y ago
  They should arbitrage the difference between our pay to replace me and get me fired.
- dylan604 5y ago
  Typically, aren't new contracts drawn up so that the person you hired is recognized on the other end as well?
- frosted-flakes 5y ago
  That's how a temp agency works, no? You hire the agency because you need a worker for a short term job, and the agency will in turn hire a temp worker to actually do the job.
mbreese 5y ago
But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As said above, TPG isn’t subject to the TOS because they aren’t the ones who agreed to them. So, it’s the user that is misusing AAs data. But they don’t want to sue their customers (and in particular each customer individually, because I’m sure there is a no-class-action clause)… So here we are. It should be fascinating to see where this goes.
- tiahura 5y ago
  But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As the great Professor Hecker repeated so often in Business Associations - “The tortfeasor is always liable.” E.g. when you get hit by the Dominoes delivery driver, you can sue the delivery driver.
  - rhizome 5y ago
    I was just looking at this in the context of the Rogel Aguilera-Mederos (110 year sentence) truck-crash case the other week. IANAL, but as I understand it there's a legal concept called "respondeat superior" and the "McHaffie Rule" that may complicate that assertion. A lawyer could and probably would stomp me on this description, naturally.
    - tiahura 5y ago
      Respondeat superior means the employer is also liable, not solely liable. Again, the tortfeasor is always liable. Iaal.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. Respondeat superior lets you sue the principal for torts of an agent committed in the scope of their agency, but it doesn't eliminate the liability of the agent for their own torts. You typically want to sue the principal when the agent is less able to pay, less willing to settle, or one of many easily replaceable agents employed by the principal for the same purpose. When the first and third of those are reversed and the second is unclear (which seems to be the case here), you want to focus on the agent. You could sue the multitude of principals, too, but that's just a lot more cost for little additional benefit (and possibly sympathy backfire in a jury trial.)

backtoyoujim 5y ago

How does that logic apply to people that sublet rental spaces ?

alexpotato 5y ago
Some leases specify that sub letting is not allowed and doing some would put the original tenant in breach of the lease agreement.
- dylan604 5y ago
  I'd even say most leases vs some, especially regarding residential. Buying a house for the purposes of renting requires different financing (although most are being bought for cash) than a typical homeowner's financing which has clauses that says the person receiving the financing will use the address as their primary residence. These things get ridiculously specific.
adrianba 5y ago
Subletting isn't an agency relationship. It's not like tenants provide a service to landlords by occupying the property as well as paying rent. Also, the law around real property including leases is different and more involved than straightforward contractual relationships.

gowld 5y ago

What happens if you hire someone to be your agent at your job?

Glyptodon 5y ago
They should arbitrage the difference between our pay to replace me and get me fired.
dylan604 5y ago
Typically, aren't new contracts drawn up so that the person you hired is recognized on the other end as well?
frosted-flakes 5y ago
That's how a temp agency works, no? You hire the agency because you need a worker for a short term job, and the agency will in turn hire a temp worker to actually do the job.

mbreese 5y ago

But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As said above, TPG isn’t subject to the TOS because they aren’t the ones who agreed to them. So, it’s the user that is misusing AAs data. But they don’t want to sue their customers (and in particular each customer individually, because I’m sure there is a no-class-action clause)… So here we are. It should be fascinating to see where this goes.

tiahura 5y ago
But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. As the great Professor Hecker repeated so often in Business Associations - “The tortfeasor is always liable.” E.g. when you get hit by the Dominoes delivery driver, you can sue the delivery driver.
- rhizome 5y ago
  I was just looking at this in the context of the Rogel Aguilera-Mederos (110 year sentence) truck-crash case the other week. IANAL, but as I understand it there's a legal concept called "respondeat superior" and the "McHaffie Rule" that may complicate that assertion. A lawyer could and probably would stomp me on this description, naturally.
  - tiahura 5y ago
    Respondeat superior means the employer is also liable, not solely liable. Again, the tortfeasor is always liable. Iaal.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> But if TPG is an agent of the customer, then AA should be suing the customer. Respondeat superior lets you sue the principal for torts of an agent committed in the scope of their agency, but it doesn't eliminate the liability of the agent for their own torts. You typically want to sue the principal when the agent is less able to pay, less willing to settle, or one of many easily replaceable agents employed by the principal for the same purpose. When the first and third of those are reversed and the second is unclear (which seems to be the case here), you want to focus on the agent. You could sue the multitude of principals, too, but that's just a lot more cost for little additional benefit (and possibly sympathy backfire in a jury trial.)