10:19 .11 11-‘s •
o totalassignmenthelp.com
@ASSIGNMENT HELP present case, it is prima tame estapiisneu tnat I errance had fired Peter on account of misconduct on Monday, and the order received by Gordan on Tuesday, which established the fact that the there is no legally binding contract between the Terrance and Gordan (Grundmann, 2011). Furthermore, from the definition of vicarious liability, it is clear that Terrance is not liable to pay any money to Gordan. For the kind perusal, the definition of
GET ASSISTANCE
E U) 0 IP
arious liability is stated as “the employer is vicariously le for the negligent act or omissions did by his ployee during his employment” (“Vicarious Liability or bility for the Acts of Others in Tort: A Comparative spective,” 2011). From the definition of the vicarious
liability, it is prima facie clear that the employer is only liable for the act done by the employee only during the employment and from the given facts it is prima facie clear that the employment of Peter has been terminated on Monday. So agreements made after Monday are not the liability of the Terrance (Morgan, 2011).
Conclusion: In the end, it is to be concluded that the act of Sara is not so serious and can be indemnified by giving one warning but the act of Peter to intentionally committing of fraud is such serious and is legal action.

london, londonstudent, alwaysopen, plagiarismfreework, melbourne, assignmenthelpmelbourne, assignmenthelpaustralia, assignmenthelpsydney, studentassignmenthelp, assignmenthelpwebsites, myassignmenthelp