Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Thus, we adopt a common-law test for determining who qualifies as an "employee" under ERISA,3 a test we most recently summarized in Reid: "In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished.
The Court held that common law agency principles should be applied to decide whether a work is made by an employee or an independent contractor. While the statute was silent on the meaning of "employee," Congress could be inferred to have wanted to incorporate agency law definitions, as it also referred to the term "scope of employment" that ...
Agency law in the United Kingdom is a component of UK commercial law, and forms a core set of rules necessary for the smooth functioning of business. Agency law is primarily governed by the Common law and to a lesser extent by statutory instruments. In 1986, the European Communities enacted Directive 86/653/EEC on self-employed commercial agents.
For common law contracts, disputes over contract formation are subjected to what is known as the objective test of assent in order to determine whether a contract exists. This standard is also known as the officious bystander , reasonable bystander , reasonable third party , or reasonable person in the position of the party . [ 51 ]
The Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) is a centralized national-level entrance test for admissions to the 25 out of 27 National Law Universities (NLU) except NLU Delhi and NLU Meghalaya. CLAT was first introduced in 2008 as a centralized entrance examination for admission to the National Law Schools/Universities in India.
A principal consequence of the doctrine of privity is that, at common law, a third party generally has no right to enforce a contract to which they are not a party, even where that contract was entered into by the contracting parties specifically for their benefit and with a common intention among all of them that they should be able to enforce it.
In US securities law cases in which respondeat superior has been considered in which the company was not a knowing participant in the employee's fraud, the results have been mixed. [7] In O'Brien v. Dean Witter Reynolds (D. Ariz 1984), the court, emphasizing the requirement of knowing participation, stated that an employee's knowledge could not ...
Until 1938, federal courts in the United States followed the doctrine set forth in the 1842 case of Swift v.Tyson. [2] In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal courts hearing cases brought under their diversity jurisdiction (allowing them to hear cases between parties from different U.S. states) had to apply the statutory law of the states, but not the common law developed by ...