6. The insured cannot end the authority of the insurance agent if part of the authority agreed upon has been exercised already. If the insured were to go ahead and do so, then they would be required to compensate the insurance agent for any losses incurred. Legally, the authority of the insurance agent can be terminated through a contractual agreement between the two parties. In addition, the authority may be terminated through the occurrence of death or insanity on the part of either. Moreover, the insured can terminate the authority in the event that they are declared bankrupt.

7. When the principal knowingly selected the services of an incompetent insurance agent. The two conditions are: that the principal-agent relationship exists and that the agent committed the tort within that relationship.

7a. In determining the scope within which an employee was performing their duty, it is necessary to ascertain the employment period and the terms. Moreover the facilities and tools used could point to the very scope of the work execution. Finally, the basis of employment is a determiner in this case.

7b. An instance of an employee acting within the scope of their employment is when the person was hired to further the principal’s business.

8. An example of an employee acting without the scope of their employment is when the facilities used in the exercise of the work are not attributable to the principal.

9. An employer is always responsible for negligence in hiring, training and supervising agents. In an insurance agency, the principal is responsible for errors committed by the agent in the course of exercising its duties as contracted by the principal.

10. In general, a general contractor is only liable for torts committed by agents that are employees. A general contractor is not liable for torts arising from negligence of a sub contractor contracted to do a job other than those under the contractor’s jurisdiction.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?