Agencies

Sue and Tom are business partners. To me, that means that they are fifty-fifty principals. My opinion is that in this situation when Sue went ahead and purchased the property without the knowledge of Tom. In this instance, I believe that even though Tom did not come to a decision on the deadline they had both agreed upon. Sue is held liable as principal partners to include him on the property if he so chooses to be included on the property. I believe that Sue's lack of loyalty informing and care to the partnership holds her more liable than him. Sue's lack of cooperation on this purchase caused the partnership to suffer. She didn't wait on Tom's return from his trip and settle the matter. The duty of informing Tom and giving him ample warning in the occurrence of being delinquent of his decision to purchase the property that she would then, purchase it solely under her name. Even though these acts are between two partners, Sue was acting solely when she purchased this property. This puts her in the agent and principle roles.

There are many duties that both of them could have possibly breached starting with Tom. Tom breached the duties of care, and inform. Tom could be held liable for any damages caused by his negligence. But on the other hand, Tom may not be held liable for honest error in judgment. Tom's inability to come notify Sue prior to the deadline could fall under care and informing. His lack of cooperation caused Sue to go behind his back and purchase the property with out his knowledge. He also didn't even try to notify Sue of his intention prior to the deadline, which in turn, gave Sue no other choice but to go ahead and purchase the property solely. Tom's lack of performance when it comes down to it, his lack of care and performing his lawful duties as a principal caused Sue to negate their partnership in this property.

Sue's duties that she may have breached could include duty of loyalty, care, inform, and obedience. She could be held accountable to reimburse Tom because of their previous partnership. Tom could have also had monies set aside for this purchase and he may have to take a penalty on them if he can't purchase the property. This would be a duty to inform on Sue's part. Her inability to cooperate past