employment, the employer should not be held responsible for the employee’s actions because the employee
was aided by a non-employee.
By a plaintiff in an attempt to show that even if an employee was acting outside the scope of employment, the
employer may be liable for the employee’s action because the employee was aided by the agency relationship.
By a defending employer in an attempt to show that an employee was acting outside the scope of employment
and that the employer should not, therefore, be held liable for the employee’s actions.
By a plaintiff in an attempt to show that an employee was acting within the scope of employment and that the
employer should, therefore, be held liable for the employee’s actions.
50. In CASE 5.2 EBC I, Inc. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., (2005) the plaintiffs claimed that Goldman Sachs breached a
fiduciary duty in acting as an underwriter and in providing advice to eToys, the plaintiff’s predecessor, in regard to an
initial public offering of stock. How did the court rule and why?
The court dismissed the case on the basis that Goldman Sachs as an underwriter could not be considered a
fiduciary based on its role in the transactions at issue.
The court refused to order a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and found that Goldman Sachs’ failure to disclose
a material conflict of interest established a claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
The court dismissed the case because Goldman Sachs had every right to make a profit out of the transaction so
long as no actual misrepresentations were made to the plaintiffs.
The court refused to order a dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim and found that Goldman Sachs’ could be held
liable based on material misrepresentations made to the plaintiffs regarding the value of the stock involved in
the initial public offering.
United States – BUSBROG: – Analytic
51. Under the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), what would be the result if an electronic agent
agrees to a click-wrap agreement?
The user of the electronic agent would not be liable for the agreement.
The user of the electronic agent would be liable for the agreement only if the evidence established that the user
had an opportunity to look over the agreement and cancel it within a reasonable length of time.
The use of the electronic agent would be liable for the agreement.
The user of the electronic agent would be liable for the agreement only if the user was a merchant in respect to
goods or services of the type purchased by the agreement.
United States – BUSBROG: – Analytic
b
1
United States – BUSBROG: – Analytic
DISC: – AICPA: BB-Legal
5-5 Liability for Torts of Agents
Blooms: Application