In: Economics
Bill has dismissed Penelope from her job as his personal assistant. She decides to get revenge by phoning the local pizza delivery shop and ordering 30 vegetarian pizzas to be delivered to Bill’s house that evening ’for a business working dinner’. She has ordered pizzas from the same shop on behalf of Bill, as his agent, in the past. When they arrive at his home Bill refuses delivery. a) Advise the pizza delivery shop regarding any possible legal action against Bill. b) Explain whether your answer would be different if Penelope had not previously ordered pizzas on behalf of Bill from the pizza delivery shop.
A.
On the basis of respondeat superior doctrine, Bill was responsible for the action of Penelope as long as she was agent. But, Bill did not intimated all the concerned entities regarding the removal of Penelope and not accepting any new ordering from her end on behalf of the company or Bill. This negligence done at the end of Bill, not informing the pizza shop regarding the removal of Penelope from her job, is the basis of legal action by local pizza shop. Due to lack of any communication, local pizza shop delivered pizzas in good faith and as it had happened in the past. So, lack of communication at the end of Bill is the basis of legal action against him by the pizza shop.
==
B.
If there was no any orders in the past, then there is no basis of any legal action against Bill. Rather, it is the responsibility of the local pizza shop to verify the claims made by Penelope as authorized person to order pizzas on behalf of Bill. since, it was not done by Pizza shop, then there is no any basis of legal action against Bill.
Though, Pizza house can take legal action against Penelope for pursuing fraudulent activities and hiding her present status.