Weekly Case Summary Assignments

Please answer the follow questions for both case studies. I’ve also attached a word document to see each case study if needed:

Case Summary 10.3: Fid. Duty: Toms v. Links Sports Management Grp [P.350]
FIDUCIARY DUTY Parker, a sports agent, represented David Toms, a professional golfer. Parker also represented Shaun Micheel and other professional golfers. Parker received a 20 percent commission on any endorsement contracts signed by Toms and a 25 percent commission on endorsement contracts signed by Micheel. In 2003, Parker was in the middle of negotiations with Cleveland Golf on Toms’s behalf. After Micheel was the surprise winner at the PGA Championship, Parker convinced Toms that he should hold out for a more lucrative endorsement deal than was being offered by Cleveland, and he
subsequently signed Micheel, instead of Toms, to the Cleveland Golf deal.
CASE QUESTIONS
1. What agency relationship exists between Toms and Parker?
2. If an agency relationship exists, when was a fiduciary duty created and what subduties apply to this case? Explain.
3. Is Parker’s employer also liable for the actions of Parker? Why or why not?
Case Summary 11.2: Commuting: Bonilla v. Baker Concrete Construction [P.391]
COMPENSATION FOR COMMUTING Bonillo was one of several workers hired by Baker Concrete to work on construction at the Miami airport. During construction, airport security required the workers to pass through a security gate and ride in an airport-authorized bus to the site. Baker Concrete paid the workers for being at the site from 7:30 a.m. until
4 p.m. Because of the security requirements, the workers had to arrive at the airport an hour early in order to get to the site on time, and their commute home was
extended 15 additional minutes. The workers sued, contending that under the Fair Labor Standards Act they should have been compensated for time spent being transported to and from the employee parking area to the construction site.
CASE QUESTIONS
1. Who prevails and why?
2. Explain your analysis and construct a hypothetical situation in which the losing party may have prevailed.