The Gig Economy. Principles of agency law and scope of employment

The Gig Economy
Name
Course
Date
Principles of agency law and scope of employment
The principals-agent relationship reflects that the agent works for the principal is expected to act with the best of intentions and without any type of conflict of interest. However, the agency problem arises when the agent, who is supposed to make decisions in the best interests of the principal, is motivated by their own interest and there is conflict of interest.
The principal compensates the agent as agreed, indemnifies against the agent expense, claims and liabilities incurred in carrying out duties. The agent acts on behalf of the principal, within the scope of employment or as duties are delegated, agents discharge their duties and exercise due care and diligence, while they also avoid conflict of interests. There is a duty of obedience since an agent has the duty to obey reasonable instructions from the principal (Jennings, 2018). Agents also hand over monies collected on behalf of the agent.
The scope of employment is the time period where the agent works for a principal and agents work within the scope of their employment, when they perform what they were to do and what is generally accepted as their duties and responsibilities. Employers are liable under respondeat superior if the employee is while on duty and on the wrong.
Uber drivers are agents since they have to sign up to work as drivers and Uber exercises some form of control over them. Despite Uber calling itself a technology company by including terms such as ‘Uber drivers” and “off-duty” this implies they are in the transportation industry and the drivers are bound by Uber’s terms. Uber regards the drivers as independent and self-employed contractors, but the drivers and their representatives have lodged lawsuits to be organized as employees who have more rights and would be agents of Uber (Bales & Woo 2016).
Independent contractors own their businesses and cover most of their costs, expenses and taxes, but employees are agents of the principal. Reclassifying the driver as employees, would imply that Uber liable for some of the negligent or unlawful or actions by the Uber drivers (Lobel, 2017). Similarly, they would be liable for the on-duty actions within the scope of their employment. In the case Lange v. National Biscuit Company, Nabisco was held responsible for the conduct of Lynch who threw merchandise and inured Lange in his store, which resulted in Lange’s injury as Nabisco failed to act when Lange had complained before about Lynch’s behavior (Jennings, 2018).
The law of Agency and liability
A principal is held responsible for the tortious acts of an agent under the doctrine of respondeat superior when the agent is within the scope of employment (Jennings, 2018). Vicarious liability arises when one is held responsible for the actions of another person.
First the drunk, Uber driver is held responsible for his negligence,...