Author Question: An employment of an agent for the purpose of representation in establishing relations between a ... (Read 48 times)

formula1 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

An employment of an agent for the purpose of representation in establishing relations between a principal and third parties is known as a:
a. third party relationship b. principal relationship
c. representative relationship d. real relationship
e. none of the other choices are correct

Question 2

Arbitration. Randall Fris worked as a seaman on an Exxon Shipping Co oil tanker for eight years without incident. One night, he boarded the ship for duty while intoxicated, in violation of company policy. This policy also allowed Exxon to discharge employees who were intoxicated and thus unfit for work. Exxon discharged Fris. Under a contract with Fris's union, the discharge was submitted to arbitration. The arbitrators ordered Exxon to reinstate Fris on an oil tanker. Exxon filed a suit against the union, challenging the award as contrary to public policy, which opposes having intoxicated persons operate seagoing vessels. Can a court set aside an arbitration award on the ground (legal basis) that the award violates public policy? Should the court set aside the award in this case? Explain.

sarah_brady415 · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Arbitration
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the arbitration award, requiring Exxon to reinstate Fris, should be vacated as contrary to public policy. The court reasoned that the award violates a public policy that is both well defined and dominant, that is that owners and operators of oil tankers should be permitted to discharge crew members who are found to be intoxicated while on duty. The court explained, An intoxicated crew member on such a vessel can cause loss of life and catastrophic environmental and economic injury. Some of this injury may not be reparable by money damages. The court offered, as an example, harm caused by oil spills. Moreover, added the court, it is entirely possible that much of the cost resulting from a major oil spill may fall on taxpayers and those who are injured by the accident.