dennegar liability
DESCRIPTION
Week 4 Assignment: Dennegar Liability Denisa Dobrin New England College of Business and Finance Introduction Hello everyone and welcome! My name is Denisa Dobrin and this week I will be reviewing the case “New Century Financial Services Inc v. Dennegar”. My main objective will be to answer the question: “Under what theory could Dennegar be liable for the charges?” This presentation constitutes my Week 4 Assignment for the “Legal Issues in Business” class at NECB. Case overview To start, here is an overview of our case. In February 2001, AT&T Universal issued a credit card in the name of the defendant, Lee Dennegar. AT&T Universal then sent monthly statements to the home owned by the defendant, 55 Thompson Street in Raritan. Mark Knutson was the roommate of the defendant at that time. Since Knutson had no funds or income, the defendant's funds were used to pay the mortgage on the Raritan home, and all other household expenses. The defendant testified that he allowed Knutson to manage their household's financial affairs and the "general office functions concerned with maintaining the house" (the mail, signing his name to checks etc.) – per Fisher (n.d.). After Knutson died, the defendant learned that Knutson had incurred obligations in his name of which he claimed he was not previously aware. This happened as the plaintiff, New Century Financial Services Inc., to whom the AT&T Universal credit card debt had been assigned, filed an action to collect. Although defendant stated, as mentioned, that he had no knowledge of this account, the trial judge found that "defendant created the situation where someone else would utilize his financial resources to pay for the joint expenses." (Fisher, n.d.) Since either he or Knutson had opened and used the account, the defendant was liable for the accrued debt. On appeal, defendant argued that the judge erroneously admitted hearsay evidence. He also maintained that “the evidence failed to demonstrate the formation of a contract between AT&T and defendant, or that Knutson had the apparent authority to act for defendant, and that plaintiff or its assignor failed to comply with the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1601 to 1667.” (Justia US Law.com, 2007) Upon reviewing the case, it becomes obvious that the theory we need to analyze closer is the Agency theory. While doing that will also define the "Master-Servant Rule” and find a meaning for apparent authority. We will then touch on the issue of Creditors' and Debtors' rights as it relates to credit cards. Lastly, there will be a few words about the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) before drawing to a conclusion on the case at hand. Agency theory Agency is conceivably the most conventional legal relationship in the business world. It explains the relationship between principals and agents. It is a legal relationship in which one party, the agent, transacts business (for third parties) for and under the control of the second, the principal.TRANSCRIPT
Dennegar Liability presented by Denisa Dobrin
New England College of Business and FinanceMBA530 – Legal Issues in Business
Prof. Deborah Sementa
• Introduction …………………………………………. 3
• Overview of the case ................................................ 5
• Agency theory - Agency relationships ..…………… 10
• The "Master-Servant Rule” ………………………….. 12
• Apparent authority …………………………………… 13
• Truth in Lending Act (TILA)…………………………... 14
• Conclusion………………………………………………17
• References ……………………………….…………… 22
Table of Contents
DenisaCase review: “New Century Financial Services Inc v. DENNEGAR”.
Overview of the caseNEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES INC
v. DENNEGAR
The appeal
Hearsay evidence
Failure to form a contract
Failure to comply with the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA)
Points to debate
Agents: Agency theory - Agency relationshipsThe "Master-Servant Rule” Apparent authorityTruth in Lending Act (TILA)Creditors' and Debtors' rightsCredit Cards
Agency theory
Agency relationships
The "Master-Servant Rule”
Respondeat superior
(Latin = "let the master answer“)
Apparent authority
Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
Creditors' and Debtors' rights
Credit Cards
Conclusion
Judges verdict
Per Agency theory, the trial judge found that defendant was properly held liable
Not applicable…
I’M LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR QUESTIONS…
THANK YOU for watching!
?
REFERENCESBaime, E. (n.d.). Week 4: Lecture - Agency I. Retrieved from:
https://necb.instructure.com/courses/1180860/discussion_topics/2516973?module_item_id=10257448
Baime, E. (n.d.). Week 4: Lecture - Agency II. Retrieved from: https://necb.instructure.com/courses/1180860/discussion_topics/2516972?module_item_id=10257449
Dornfeld, R. O. (1955) "Tort Liability in German School Law". Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law) 20 (1): 72–79. JSTOR 1190275
Fisher, J.A.D. (n.d.). New Century Financial Services Inc v. Dennegar. Retrieved from: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-superior-court-appellate-division/1263011.html
Justia US Law.com (2007) NEW CENTURY FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. v. LEE B. DENNEGAR. Retrieved from: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-published/2007/a5403-05-opn.html
Wikipedia (n.d.) Respondeat superior. Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior#cite_note-Owen-2