| Course | AC502 Business Law for Accountants |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Agency liability problem |
| Length | About 670 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC502 Unit 4
A Birthday Cake, Nine Miles Off Route: A Unit 4 Agency Liability Problem With Two Possible Employers
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC502: Business Law for Accountants
Unit 4 Agency Liability Problem
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The staffing agency, the tax practice, the preparer, the florist and every detail are composite; the Restatement, case and textbook cited are real; this is coursework analysis, not legal advice.
The Parties and Facts
1. The staffing agency is the general employer. It recruited the preparer, pays her wages, withholds her taxes and can reassign her.
2. The tax practice is the borrowing employer. It sets her hours, assigns her returns, trains her on its software and supervises her daily work.
3. The preparer is the agent. On April 10, a manager at the practice told her to drive her own car across town, deliver signed returns to a client and come straight back.
4. The florist is the injured third party. Its delivery van was struck and damaged, and its driver was hurt.
She delivered the returns at 2:10 p.m., then drove nine miles in the opposite direction to a bakery to collect a cake for her daughter. At 2:55 p.m., a block after rejoining the direct route back to the office, she rear-ended the florist's van.
Step 1: Employee or Independent Contractor?
Vicarious liability under respondeat superior applies to employees, not independent contractors (Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07, 2006). The preparer works set hours, under supervision, using the practice's methods, and is paid by the hour through the agency. Someone controls the manner and means of her work, so she is an employee. The remaining question is whose.
Step 2: Scope of Employment, Leg by Leg
The Restatement treats an employee as within the scope of employment while doing assigned work or acting under the employer's control, and outside it once she sets off on a course of her own that serves none of the employer's ends (Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07, 2006).
Leg 1: Office to client. Clearly within scope. The manager assigned the delivery.
Leg 2: Client to bakery. Outside scope. Driving nine miles in the opposite direction to buy a cake for her family served no purpose of either employer. Older cases called a departure this large a frolic.
Leg 3: Bakery back toward the office. This is the leg that matters. Courts have long asked when a servant who has departed on a personal errand re-enters the employer's service. In a classic New York case, the court held that re-entry occurs when the employee is back on a route reasonably related to the assigned task and is again acting with the purpose of serving the employer (Fiocco v. Carver, 1922). She had rejoined the direct route to the office, which she had been told to return to, and was driving back to resume work.
The collision happened after the personal errand had ended, on the road the manager told her to take, so the question is not whether she strayed but whether she had come back, and on these facts she had.
Step 3: Which Employer Controlled the Act?
When an employee is lent by one employer to another, liability generally falls on the employer with the right to control the employee's conduct at the time of the act (Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03, 2006). The practice assigned the delivery, chose the route instruction and supervised the task. The agency had no involvement in the errand and no ability to direct it. The practice is the employer answerable for the collision. Some courts allow liability against both employers where control is shared, so the florist would likely name both.
Conclusion
The practice is vicariously liable to the florist for the collision. The agency is unlikely to be liable, though it will probably be sued. The preparer remains personally liable for her own negligence. The practice should notify its insurer and check whether its staffing contract requires the agency to indemnify it (Clarkson et al., 2021).
References
Clarkson, K. W., Miller, R. L., & Cross, F. B. (2021). Business law: Text and cases (15th ed.). Cengage.
Fiocco v. Carver, 234 N.Y. 219, 137 N.E. 309 (1922).
Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.03 (Am. L. Inst. 2006).
Restatement (Third) of Agency § 7.07 (Am. L. Inst. 2006).
AC502 Unit 4 instructions, in plain terms
Unit 4 of AC502 asks you to work an agency liability problem in a set order. Identify every party and its role. Settle employee status first, asking who controlled over the manner and means of work. Then test scope of employment for each segment of the worker's conduct, separating assigned work from personal departures and deciding when, if ever, the worker re-entered the employer's service. Where two employers are involved, decide which had the right to control the act at the time, and note whether the jurisdiction might impose liability on both. Conclude with who is liable to the injured party and what practical steps follow, such as insurance and indemnity. Cite the Restatement, a leading case on deviation and the course text in APA 7.
How this AC502 Unit 4 example is built
The sample lists four parties: the agency as general employer, the practice as borrowing employer, the preparer and the florist. Step one finds an employee based on set hours, supervision and hourly pay. Step two splits the trip into three legs: the assigned delivery, the nine-mile personal errand, and the return. The return leg is analyzed under Fiocco v. Carver's re-entry rule, and the highlighted sentence asks whether she had in fact returned to work. Step three applies the Restatement's control test to place liability on the practice, noting that some courts reach both employers. The conclusion addresses the preparer's personal liability, the insurer and the staffing contract's indemnity clause.
Reading the AC502 Unit 4 grading rubric
Agency problems in AC502 earn points for working in the right order and for precise application at each step. Graders check that employee status is settled before scope, and that scope is tested segment by segment rather than for the whole trip. The rubric rewards students who identify the decisive segment and apply re-entry or deviation doctrine with authority. Where two employers are involved, the control question must be analyzed, not assumed. Conclusions that address practical consequences, such as indemnity and the employee's own liability, show judgment. Answers that call the whole trip a frolic, or ignore the borrowed-servant issue, lose substantial credit. APA 7 citations support each step.
AC502 Unit 4 help from the desk
Many Unit 4 answers treat the entire trip as one act and label it frolic or detour without separating the legs. Employee status is assumed without discussing control. The return leg, where the collision happened, gets less attention than the errand. The borrowed-servant question is missed, so the general employer is named liable by default. An instruction to come straight back is treated as automatically ending scope. The employee's personal liability is forgotten. If your section's problem involves an independent contractor or a different deviation, our writers can work it through the same steps with your facts.
Get an AC502 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Lay out the Unit 4 scenario with every party and instruction it mentions, and attach the rubric. Status, then scope leg by leg, then which principal answers: the analysis returns in the order a court would take those questions, inside 24-48h. Nothing is charged for a first sample, and the preparer, practice and agency are all fictional. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC502 papers and MS in Accounting samples
- AC502 Unit 1: Holder in Due Course Discussion
- AC502 Unit 2: UCC Contract Formation Analysis
- AC502 Unit 3: Ultramares Case Brief
- AC502 Unit 5: Sales Contract Analysis
- AC502 Unit 6: Secured Transactions Problem
- AC502 Unit 7: Entity Comparison Memo
- AC502 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC502 Unit 9: Accountant Liability Case Study
- AC502 Unit 10: Legal Risk Memorandum
- AC501 Unit 4: GAAP Research Memo
AC502 Unit 4 questions, answered
Could both the agency and the practice be liable?
In some jurisdictions, yes. Courts applying a strict borrowed-servant rule place liability on the single employer that controlled the act, while others allow a dual-employment finding in which both answer to the injured party. The example applies the control test, concludes the practice is the stronger target, and names the dual approach as the result a different court could reach.
Does the instruction to come straight back protect the practice?
Not by itself. Employers remain liable for authorized work performed in a forbidden manner, so an instruction alone rarely takes conduct outside scope. It matters in this scenario because the cake run served no purpose of the practice at all. The example uses the instruction as evidence that the detour was personal, never as a freestanding defense.
What does the staffing agreement's indemnity clause change?
It decides which business ultimately bears the cost, not whether the florist can recover. If the practice agreed to indemnify the agency for claims arising from work it supervised, the agency could shift any judgment against it back to the practice. The example handles the clause in one paragraph after liability to the florist is settled, keeping the two questions apart.
Where can I find a free AC502 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC502 Unit 4 agency liability problem on a borrowed tax preparer's collision after a personal errand, with employee status, scope tested leg by leg, the control question and APA 7 references.
When does an employee re-enter the scope of employment after a personal errand?
Under the classic New York rule, when she is back on a route reasonably connected to the assigned task and acting again to serve the employer. The preparer had rejoined the direct route to the office she was told to return to.