Wilson was an agent of Noland. Peterson did not know Wilson was Noland's agent; Peterson did not know Wilson was anyone's agent. (Noland did not want anyone except Wilson to know of the agency). Wilson caused Peterson to suffer significant damages. Noland did not breach a duty of care either with respect to hiring or retaining Wilson. Within the time set by the applicable statute of limitations, Peterson sues Noland, seeking compensation for her damages. Peterson cannot show that Wilson owed her a duty of care. Will Peterson prevail?
+2
Answers (1)
Know the Answer?
Not Sure About the Answer?
Find an answer to your question ✅ “Wilson was an agent of Noland. Peterson did not know Wilson was Noland's agent; Peterson did not know Wilson was anyone's agent. (Noland ...” in 📘 Business if you're in doubt about the correctness of the answers or there's no answer, then try to use the smart search and find answers to the similar questions.
Home » Business » Wilson was an agent of Noland. Peterson did not know Wilson was Noland's agent; Peterson did not know Wilson was anyone's agent. (Noland did not want anyone except Wilson to know of the agency). Wilson caused Peterson to suffer significant damages.