Assessment of the Moral and Legal Responsibilities and Rights of Case Essay

Assessment of the Moral and Legal Responsibilities and Rights of Case Parties - Essay recitationFirst we determine the moral and good responsibilities of move around Reynolds. In essence he acted in spoilt faith, acting for his own benefit and gain, and to the detriment of the interests of Mr. McLean. That there was an agreement amongst the two is verified in the beginning of the case. Rick acted in bad faith in the construction of the facilities, cutting corners and under the hold over deals to enrich himself, with the end result being that the facilities were subpar, and caused harm to a resident, when faulty wiring caused a throw out that in turn caused the injury to the resident. Rick likewise acted in bad faith in procuring medical exam equipment and supplies, enriching himself by selling some of the procured goods and keeping the proceeds. Morally he is culpable for fraud and deceit. Legally he is liable for a host of crimes. Under the law, Rick can be considered as e ither a substituted agent or a sub-agent, and as such, there are statutory precepts that can hold Rick accountable for his crimes as if he were the primary agent or principal, acting alone. He can gum olibanum be held liable for misrepresenting himself as a manager of the company, and for intentionally duping the pharmacies into providing the goods to the company, where some of the goods ended up being sold by Rick for his own financial gain. Where there is a contractual agreement between Mr. McLean and Rick, moreover, Rick is answerable for his acts to Mr. McLean, who under the law can sue Rick for his fraudulent activities, under the legal precepts concerning the legal rights of the principal towards his substituted agent. In particular, there was fraud in the way Rick went about contacting the several(predicate) parties involved in building the facility, and for such fraud Rick can be sued by Mr. McLean (The Lectric fair play Library, 2012 PreserveArticles.com, 2011). Mr. McL ean himself can be said to be morally and legally liable for some of the acts of Rick, such as those that pertain to the acquisition of supplies. While it may be true that Mr. McLean may not have authorize the procurement of the goods on credit from the pharmacies, there are legal precepts that may hold Mr. McLean accountable for the acts of Rick. In other words, though there may have been fraud in the way Rick procured the supplies, Mr. McLean may be sued by the pharmacies if the former does not honor the supply contracts and reneges on the payment for the goods bought on credit. For one, a case may be made for the way Ricks actions procuring the supplies may be construed as constituting part of his telephone circuit responsibilities, and part of the roles that he was authorized to play as an agent of Mr. McLean. There are clear legal principles that may prevent Mr. McLean from running away from the legal consequences of the actions of Rick, such as those that pertain to the com pany gainful for the goods that Rick bought on credit and with intent to commit fraud. Clearly the law in some instances fix that even when an agent commits acts that are criminal, and without the express consent of the principal, the principal, in this case Mr. McLean. The pharmacies may argue that there would have been no way for them to discern that Rick was acting on his own behalf rather than on behalf of Mr. McLean, given that Rick, to them, seemed to have the