Business & Finance Chapter 14 Which of the four general factors which bear upon whether a master

Unlock access to all the studying documents.

View Full Document

219. In France v. Southern Equipment Co., where France, after falling off a roof, sued Southern Equipment Co. who

had employed Quality Metal Roof, a company that contracted with France’s employer, Royalty Builders, to build

them a new metal roof for exposing him to the inherently dangerous job of roofing, the appeals court held that there

are four general factors that bear upon whether a master-servant relationship exists. Which of the following is one

of those factors:

a. selection and engagement of the servant

b. payment of compensation

c. power of dismissal

d. power of control

e. all of the other specific choices are factors

220. Which of the four general factors which bear upon whether a master-servant relationship exists is determinative:

a. selection and engagement of the servant

b. payment of compensation

c. power of dismissal

d. power of control

e. all of the other specific choices are determinative

221. Which of the four general factors which bear upon whether a master-servant relationship exists is determinative:

a. selection and engagement of the servant

b. payment of compensation

c. power of dismissal

d. all of the other specific choices are determinative

e. none of the factors listed are determinative

222. Which of the four general factors which bear upon whether a master-servant relationship exists is determinative:

a. selection and engagement of the servant

b. payment of compensation

c. power of dismissal

d. power of control

e. none of the factors listed are determinative

223. Which of the following is least likely to be an issue in determining if an employer has hired an employee or an

independent contractor:

a. the specialization or skill of the occupation

b. the length of the employment

c. the level of compensation

d. the nature of the worker’s tasks

e. where the work is performed

224. When an employer-employee relationship exists, employers:

a. may be liable for the torts committed by employees in the course of employment

b. are only liable for the torts committed by employees in the course of employment in some states

c. are never liable for the torts committed by employees in the course of employment

d. are liable for the torts committed by employees in the course of employment only if the employees are

minors

e. none of the other choices are correct

225. Anna hires Jack to paint her house. He supplies his equipment and buys the paint for which he will be paid by Anna.

One day while Jack is painting Anna invites Tom for lunch. As Tom is walking into the house Jack accidentally

drops a can of paint on his head. With respect to agency law, is Anna liable for the harms Jack causes Tom?

a. yes, because Jack is a servant

b. yes, because Jack is a master

c. yes, because Jack is an employee

d. no, because respondeat superior applies

e. no, because Jack is an independent contractor

226. Traditionally, the chief difference between an agent and a servant (employee) was that the:

a. servant was generally not employed to represent a principal in business dealings

b. servant was usually allowed more personal discretion in deciding how to accomplish a certain objective

c. agent was not controlled by the principal

d. servant acted on behalf of the master in contractual matters involving third parties

e. none of the other choices

227. An employee (servant) who works for an employer (master):

a. may not be an agent for the same employer as part of the relationship.

b. may not be an independent contractor for the same employer as part of the relationship.

c. may not be subject to control of details of work by the employer to retain employee status.

d. may not be held responsible for any torts committed in the course of employment.

e. none of the other choices

228. Lisa works for Sally. Lisa’s jobs include selling the folk-art Santa Claus statutes that Sally hand-makes, as well as

purchasing the wood for the statutes. In this case Lisa is:

a. a servant only

b. an agent only

c. an independent operator

d. a servant and an agent

e. a master

229. Suppose a car dealership hires people to sell cars to customers at the dealership. The people who are hired are

most likely to be:

a. employees only.

b. agents only.

c. independent contractors only.

d. employees and agents.

e. employees and independent contractors.

230. Employment-at–will:

a. allows employees to quit their jobs for any reason at any time

b. allows employers to discharge employees for any reason at any time subject to contract obligations

c. has been restricted by the courts or legislatures in some states that recognize some public policy limitations

on the employer’s right to fire an employee

d. a and b

e. a, b and c

231. Under American common law, employees are presumed to:

a. work at a certain rate

b. work at will

c. work for compensation

d. work for nothing

e. work for agencies

232. Under the common law doctrine of , employers are free to discharge employees for any reason at any time,

and employees are free to quit their jobs for any reason at any time.

a. work at will

b. work at reasonable compensation

c. worker rights

d. fair work

e. freedom of employment

233. Under the common law doctrine of , employers are free to discharge employees for any reason at any time,

and employees are free to quit their jobs for any reason at any time.

a. freedom of employment

b. work at reasonable compensation

c. worker rights

d. fair work

e. none of the other choices are correct

234. An at-will employee:

a. may not be dismissed for any reason

b. may only be dismissed for committing a major crime

c. may only be dismissed for certain reasons specified in the employment contract

d. may be dismissed at any time without reason or cause

e. none of the other choices are correct

235. In the European Union the regulation governing which country‘s laws apply to an employment law contract

involving multiple nationalities is known as:

a. Greece 1

b. Rome 1

c. European Union 1

d. European Employment Law Regulation

e. none of the other choices are correct

236. Geary was an employee of U.S. Steel. His concerns about the safety of a new product were ignored by his

superior. He went to higher management to let them know of the problem. The product was withdrawn from the

market, but Geary was fired by his superior. Geary sued the company for wrongful dismissal. The Pennsylvania

court held that Geary:

a. wins because he was protecting the public against harm, which outweighs the private interest here

b. wins because his employment rights can be lost only after due process

c. wins because management agreed with Geary’s assessment of the product; the supervisor was wrong

d. loses because of the employment–at–will doctrine

e. none of the other choices

237. An employee of a company, who has good technical knowledge, is concerned that some televisions made by the

company may have electrical shorts that could cause fires. Since no one in the company would address the

problem, the employee provides evidence of the problem to the media and state attorney general, so consumers can

be aware of the problem. If the employee is fired he is unlikely to have:

a. a case against the company

b. a case against the company unless he was an independent contractor

c. a case against the company unless he was a general agent

d. a case against the company unless he was a servant

e. a case against the company unless an injury does occur to a consumer, in which case the firing will be illegal

238. If an employer and employee agree on employment of a certain time, or that job security will be provided, then

there is likely:

a. an express contract

b. an implied contract

c. an implied covenant of good faith

d. nothing more than employment at-will

e. none of the other choices

239. An express contract in employment exists when:

a. the employer and employee agree on employment for a certain time

b. job security is not provided

c. the employer and employee agree on a certain rate of compensation

d. the employer agrees not to fire the employee without 2 weeks notice

e. none of the other choices are correct

240. In Coelho v. Posi-Seal International, were an employee was fired without good cause despite explicit statements

by the company president that the employee had job security, the supreme court of Connecticut held:

a. there to be an express contract that was breached by the employer

b. there to be an implied contract that was breached by the employer

c. the employer violated an implied covenant of good faith

d. that the employer violated public policy

e. that the employee was at-will, so had no case

241. If a company manager expressly tells an employee that she could not be fired without good cause, but then fires her

for no particular cause, the employee may have a suit for wrongful termination most likely based on the theory of:

a. breach of implied contract

b. breach of public policy

c. breach of employment manual

d. breach of a public right

e. none of the other choices; the employee has no grounds for suit due to employment at will

242. Andrea has been working very hard for her employer, Bill. Two weeks before Andrea is due for a bonus payment,

Bill fires her for no reason. Andrea could make a case that:

a. her at-will employment rights have been violated

b. the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been violated

c. the express covenant of good faith and fair dealing has been violated

d. Andrea cannot make any kind of case against Bill

e. none of the other choices are correct

243. In Guz v. Bechtel National, where Guz was fired after 22 years good service in a personnel cutback and sued for

breach of implied contract and covenant of fair dealing, the California high court held that Guz:

a. had no suit against his employer

b. had a suit only for breach of implied contract to be terminated for good cause

c. had a suit only for breach of implied covenant of fair dealing

d. had a suit for both breach of implied contract and of implied covenant

e. none of the other choices

244. In Guz v. Bechtel National, where Guz was fired after 22 years good service in a personnel cutback and sued for

improper dismissal, the California high court held that Guz:

a. had a suit for breach of contract based on the employee handbook

b. had a suit only for breach of implied contract to be terminated for good cause

c. had a suit only for breach of implied covenant of fair dealing

d. had a suit for both breach of implied contract and of implied covenant

e. none of the other choices

245. In Guz v. Bechtel National, Guz was fired by Bechtel after 22 years of service. The company eliminated his

position despite his good performance and no financial problems in the company. The California high court held that

Guz could:

a. sue on the basis of breach of an implied contract to be terminated only for good cause

b. sue for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

c. sue for managerial negligence

d. not sue due to employment at will

e. none of the other choices

246. In Guz v. Bechtel National, Guz was fired by Bechtel after 22 years of service. The company eliminated his

position despite his good performance and no financial problems in the company. The California high court held that

Guz could:

a. sue on the basis of breach of an implied contract to be terminated only for good cause

b. sue for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

c. sue for managerial negligence

d. sue for breach of his annual employment contract letter

e. none of the other choices

247. In Guz v. Bechtel National the supreme court of California held that Guz, an employee who had been fired and

sued for wrongful dismissal had:

a. no cause of action because his performance had been poor

b. no cause of action for breach of implied contract; his best hope was a violation of personnel policies that

constituted a contract

c. no cause of action for violation of personnel policies, because the company followed proper procedure, but

may have a cause of action for breach of implied contract

d. a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of fair dealing

e. a cause of action for breach of California’s employment code

248. In Guz v. Bechtel National, where Guz sued for breach of an implied contract to be terminated only for good

cause and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing after he was fired by Bechtel National

during a time of high profits, the supreme court held that Bechtel could:

a. fire Guz without reason because he had not worked for Bechtel for more than 25 years

b. not fire Guz without reason because he had worked for them for over 20 years

c. fire Guz without cause because there was insufficient evidence of an implied contract of continued

employment

d. not fire Guz without cause because there was clear evidence of an implied contract of continued

employment

e. none of the other choices are correct

249. Many companies give employees handbooks that discuss company policy and procedures. Legally, handbooks:

a. have no legal status; they are merely advisory

b. can create binding contractual employment obligations

c. are legal documents that, under the NLRA, are a part of the employment contract

d. are documents that, at common law, have always been a part of the employment contract

e. none of the other choices

250. Employee handbooks usually do which of the following?

a. discuss grounds for discipline and dismissal

b. communicate company policies and procedures

c. eliminate liability for employers for any on–the–job injuries

d. discuss grounds for discipline and dismissal and communicate company policies and procedures

e. discuss grounds for discipline and dismissal and communicate company policies and procedures and eliminate

liability for employers for any on–the-job injuries

251. According to the California supreme court in Foley v. Interactive Data, employer handbooks:

a. never create contractual limits to employment-at-will

b. may provide grounds for a breach of employment contract

c. are valid only if negotiated before hand with employees

d. are invalid due to the management power to write them

e. none of the other choices

252. An employee works for 20 years for a large company and has good job performance. When the company is

reorganized, the employee is dismissed because he is “no longer needed.” The employee probably has a good suit

for:

a. breach of implied covenant of good faith

b. breach of express contract, since he worked for more than seven years

c. tort of interference with contractual relations

d. breach of an implied contract

e. none of the other choices

253. Putting a bold disclaimer at the front of the handbook that says it is not a contract and requiring employees to sign

the disclaimer is an attempt by businesses to:

a. protect themselves from being found to create an implied contract

b. protect employees from implied contracts

c. protect employees from express contracts

d. protect themselves from suits regarding express contracts

e. none of the other choices are correct

254. Which of the following is a common problem with employee handbooks:

a. using boilerplate forms that include material not relevant to the employer

b. putting a bold disclaimer at the front of the handbook that says it is not a contract

c. requiring employees to sign a statement indicating that they have read the disclaimer that says the handbook

is not a contract

d. all of the other specific choices are correct

e. none of the other specific choices are correct

255. Which of the following is a common problem with employee handbooks:

a. making promises about discipline procedures that are not followed consistently

b. putting a bold disclaimer at the front of the handbook that says it is not a contract

c. requiring employees to sign a statement indicating that they have read the disclaimer that says the handbook

is not a contract

d. all of the other specific choices are correct

e. none of the other specific choices are correct

256. Which of the following is a common problem with employee handbooks:

a. making promises about discipline procedures that are not followed consistently

b. failing to change the handbook to comply with state and federal laws as they change

c. creating probationary periods that imply permanent status once probation has ended

d. all of the other specific choices are correct

e. none of the other specific choices are correct