Q In this case the defendant is clearly in an agency relationship with Carz Bazaar as Wilson is allowed act on behalf Home, - Carz Bazaar case Part I: Arguments for the Plaintiffs The plaintiff was right in their approach in filing a case against the employer (Carz Bazaar) for the negligent action of the employee (Charles Wilson) as he was found to be driving a car which belonged to the company. The plaintiff as a third party is not in aposition to know if the agent (Charles Wilson) was acting on behalf of the employer or not to drive the car and whether the said act binds the employer under common law and contract Law. If the act of the agent is under the control of the employer then that means the activity was expressly or impliedly authorized and the liability would be most likely to fall on the employer. However, if the act of the agent is not implied or expressly authorized under contract terms and the same is beyond ratification authority of the principal then the Plaintiff des not have a case against the employer and the agent (Charles Wilson) would be personally liable to the third party for the damage caused(Pentony, 2013). An agent must be expected to show loyalty towards the principal and must not act in manner to benefit himself at the expense of the principal. Thus, the agent would be expected to refrain from undertaking an activity which conflicts with the interest of the principal. Also, the agent owes a duty of care while in the employment of the principal or under agency agreement. He must show diligence and avoid losses to both the principal and third parties in contract with the principal or not. This means the agent is expected to act in manner which is diligent in carrying out the business of the principal. Thus, the agent is expected to show diligence and alacrity in performance of the duties(Kenneth W. Clarkson, 2014). A principal is generally expected to be bound by the acts of the agent to third parties if the activity is in pursuant to powers bestowed on him by the principal. The powers and the degree of obligation can either be under specific authority given under an agreement to act in a particular manner with the third party in carrying out business performance. Such activities are expected to part of the agents work portfolio and thus binds the principal in full. Part II: Arguments for the Defendant. In this case the defendant is clearly in an agency relationship with Carz Bazaar as Wilson is allowed act on behalf of the company and to perform a variety of duties mentioned. In the performance of the duties, the agent (Wilson) is expected to perform a no of actions and for the same the principal (Carz Bazaar) is responsible. In an agency role the agent is also allowed and authorized to interact with third parties(Sweeney, 2013). As referred form the case issues the Agent Charles Wilson is a general agent for the carz bazaar company as he assigned to undertake a variety of tasks which are defined but of varied nature. Further the employment of Charles Wilson is not limited to a specific purpose and thus he is authorized to undertake a larger variety of acts within the power specified to him. Thus, he can act widely to fulfill his job activities and in responsibility to his position as a worker(Kenneth W. Clarkson, 2014). Sometimes the Principal is bound by the implied authorities in the agent -principalrelation. This means if the employee has a position in the principals business then the third parties would assume his power to conclude business agreements and the same is implied form the agents position in the principals business and if the powers are exercised ina reasonable manner would bind the principal(Clarkson, 2012). Some of the activitiesundertaken by the agent are outside of the power of the agent but if the same has beenundertaken with an eye on the betterment of the principal’s business then the same can be ratified by the principal. Thus, if the principal ratifies the agents acts and benefits from the same then theprincipal would be responsible to third parties for their losses etc. arising out of the agent’sactions(Armour, 2015). However, the act which has been committed by the agent in this case (Charles Wilson) seems to have been outside of the powers bestowed upon him as the acts of the agent is neither under actual authority nor implied one. The acts of the agentaresuch that it can’t also be ratified by the principal as the agent has violated his employment terms and exceeded his job position brief. Thus, the principal can’t be held responsible for the losses caused to the third parties on account of the acts committed by Charles Wilson which is clearly outside the powers of the agent (under contract terms of employment) to bind the principal(Pentony, 2013). As inferred from the above discussion it is quite clear that the plaintiffswon’t succeed in binding the principal for the negligent act of the Agent for his unauthorized and out of the brief activity. Firstly, the act of borrowing the car from another employee without any action on the part of the principal is clearly outside the rights of the agent in carrying out his tasks. Hence the agent is neither expressly not impliedly authorized to act in the way he acted. Hence the Principal won’t be bound by the act of the agent and the Agent would be held personally liable for the acts of omission and commission and would be held liable outside of his employment(Bredeson, 2013).