Quote:
Originally Posted by Metallikus
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
WHat if a 30 min corpse went down to 13 seconds, a person was told it was ok to loot, looted a worthless item, then was told "someone was on the way to loot that". The person who looted, said OK, np, just have a gm move the item please, sorry for the accident and confusion. But instead of a simple item transfer, TMO made a huge deal over it and got the guy suspended for 1 week. An ignorant weapon that rots all the time, as opposed to ninja looting a bard epic item and trying to do the turn in real fast before a gm can rule for FTE.
|
EXAM ID: 8312
This is a question of agency and authority. The answer hinges upon what type of agency is present, whether there was actual or apparent authority, and whether or not the looter knew or should have known if it were proper for him to loot the item after apparently being granted "permission" by the apparent agent.
Scenario A: Looter granted authority to loot by raid representative/agent with actual authority from the principal leadership. Actual authority exists if the agent was expressly (written or oral) granted the authority to consent to the looter's looting, or if the principal's conduct would would lead a reasonable person in the agent's position to believe that the principal had authorized the agent to grant looting authority to a third party.
In the fact pattern presented, the looter was granted authority to loot a rotting item. The item was looted properly and then the looter was informed by an unnamed authority only after the irreversible looting had occurred that the looting was improper and that a mistake had been made. In this case, the looter should have no liability as he, at the time of the looting, was validly authorized to loot by an agent of the raid's principal. If the looter was indeed suspended, then the principal will be liable to the looter for the misinformation of his agent that caused the looter to get into trouble in the first place. Under the tort rule, the principle is liable for torts of the agent (here, negligence/mistake of the agent in erroneously granting loot rights that ended up getting the looter suspended) when committed within the scope of his employment. The fact pattern does not give us additional facts as to whether or not such negligence would be within the scope of the agent's employment. If such an act were non-delegable or not within the agent's scope of employment, the agent himself (as opposed to the principal) will be liable to the looter.
Scenario B: Looter granted no real authority by individual acting as an agent with no capacity to do so. In this case, if the looter was told to loot the item by a person without authority to grant such a looting, the looter will be solely responsible for his actions and the suspension will be held as legitimate. However, the looter might be able to appeal his liability on the grounds that the agent/permission grantor had apparent authority to act. Apparent authority exists if principal's words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the looter's position to believe that principal/raid leader had authorized the A to act (ex: power of position). In this case, the looter would no longer be liable. If the principal was undisclosed (unlikely given the general mechanics of a raid and the obviousness of raid leaders) there would be no apparent authority.
If apparent authority existed at the time of the looting, the agent will not be liable to the looter. This is because the principal's actions created apparent authority which dissolves any agent -> looter liability (again, unless the principal is undisclosed or partially disclosed, not likely here as explained). The agent will be liable to the principle because the agent owe a fiduciary duty to the principal, and he had no actual authority (unless the principal's actions that created apparent authority also created constructive actual authority to the agent as well).
Conclusion Under the fact pattern presented, the looter should possess no liability if he was granted permission to loot by an agent of the raid leader/principle with actual or apparent authority to do so. If the looter was indeed suspended as the fact pattern suggests, he can pursue claims against the principal (if actual or apparent authority existed in the agent and the actions were within the scope of the agent's duties). If the suspension was granted and no such authority existed, the looter has no recourse if he knew or should have known that the authority did not exist. Otherwise, he can pursue the agent.
Misc. The looter might pursue an appeal by relying upon the previous case of
Ninjaing real fast to turn in bard guts v. GM's checking FTE, 45 RnF 234, 247 (P99-2013). In specific, the looter might claim that ninja looting is "cool" cause the other guy did it and got away with it. Totally.