1. An agency contract can be terminated by an act of the parties (principal and agent), by a change of circumstances, by impossibility of performance and by operation of law (Cheeseman 2013, p.495). In this case study, Potter terminated Aker as a commercial agent, thereby terminating the agency and principal-agent relationship. Since Aker has handled approximately 200 clients during his tenure as an agent, Potter must properly notify all such clients through a termination notice that the agency relationship has ended. This would allow Potter to protect itself from potential liability and notify customers that Aker no longer serves as an agent for his company. Additionally, if Potter fails to provide proper notice to all 200 clients, Aker would still have the apparent authority to bind Potter to contracts with those clients. Failure to provide proper notice would make Potter liable for Aker's actions and torts after the fact because not all of those customers would know about the termination. Therefore, to avoid liability on the part of any of these customers, Potter must provide them with direct notice and constructive notice of termination. For example, Potter must send a direct termination notice (written or oral) to all 200 customers with whom Aker has dealt. Additionally, Potter must also send an implied termination notice to any third party or prospective client who knew that Aker was working as an agent for Potter, but with whom Aker was not dealing (Cheeseman 2013, p. 496). In conclusion, Potter must send a proper termination notice to each of the customers Aker has dealt with in order to protect himself and his business from any potential liability. This notice of termination would result...... middle of paper ...... the intentional tort against Ted Turner. As a result, Ted Turner can recover monetary and punitive damages for injuries caused by Al's actions (Cheeseman 2013, p.505). In conclusion, the Agency Act establishes certain rules that make principals, agents, and independent contractors liable to third parties for their tortious conduct. This case study summarizes how the intentional actions of an agent (Al) would also make a principal (Pete) liable, provided the agent commits the torts in the course of his employment. In short, because the repossession was an illegal act, this situation would make Pete (principal) and Al (agent), both liable for their tortious conduct toward Ted Turner. Therefore, Ted Turner has the right to file a lawsuit against Pete and Al, to recover any damages he may have suffered as a result of Al's wrongful actions...