Mr. Snarey devised and conducted a fraudulent scheme while working as an agent of Mutual Life. What would the likely result be?
◦ Only the agent was liable, because the action taken was dishonest and therefore outside the scope of the agency relationship.
◦ Since Snarey was an agent with authority to enter into this general type of transaction, the company was vicariously liable for his conduct.
◦ The doctrine of caveat emptor was applied.
◦ The company could be liable only if it were shown Snarey was an employee acting under the direction of a superior.
◦ Neither the agent nor the company could be liable, because Snarey was only an agent, and the company had no actual knowledge.
Basidiomycetes Life Cycle
Food, friends, and football . . . a way of life
A field study of guppy life history evolution.
Life cycle of Pisum sativum
Flowering plant life cycle