Emmett, an agent for Fridley, signs an agreement with Grover on Fridley's behalf but neglects to tell Fridley that the agreement requires the payment of a certain tax. The government prosecutes Fridley for failing to pay the tax. Fridley is:.
a. liable, because notice to Emmett is notice to Fridley.
b. liable, because notice to Glover is notice to Fridley.
c. not liable, because Emmett did not notify Fridley of the tax.
d. not liable, because Glover did not tell Fridley about the tax.

Option A. Liable, because notice to Emmett is notice to Fridley.

Explanation:

The reason is that the principle is liable for the outcome of the Emmett actions in the principle's behalf. So it is clear that Fridley is liable. The agent have to work in the best interest of its principal which means that the failure to notify the additional tax liability to Fridley was part of agent's fiduciary duty. This means that the principle can sue its agent for the consequences of not placing the sufficient care to its principle.

The Fridley is also responsible because Emmett is acting as Fridley which means the notice to Emmett is actually notice to Fridley.

A) liable, because notice to Emmett is notice to Fridley.

Explanation:

A principal is directly responsible for all the contracts and agreements carried out by his/her agent on his/her name. Sometimes even if no express authority exists, implied authority is sufficient for a principal to be liable for the agent's actions.

So Fridley is liable for not paying taxes, but at the same time Emmet is liable to Fridley for not telling him about the taxes that should have been paid. An agent is responsible to the principal for the actions that he/she makes on the principal's behalf.

answer; blank(1); /rises; blank(2); //increases;

answer; sales of books;