Question

1. Why might a person working for a corporation prefer to be an employee instead of an independent contractor?

2. Why might a person working for a corporation prefer to be an independent contractor instead of an employee?

3. Should employers always be liable for their employees acts? Why or why not, and what limitations, if any, would you impose on that liability?

4. Is a franchise worth the cost and restrictions? Why would anyone want to pay for and abide by a franchise agreement?

Answer 1

1. A person working for a corporation prefers to be an employee instead of an independent contractor because an employee will sure that he will be getting his salary every month. Whereas, it is not guaranteed whether the company will be considering the same contractor twice.

2. A person working for a corporation prefers to be an independent contractor instead of an employee because an independent contractor will be earning more than an employee. Furthermore, an independent contractor does not have to abide by the laws of the corporation.

3. Employers must be liable for their employee's act because employees work under the direction of the employers and are liable for the actions and activities of the employees. However, there are limitations and when employee's actions and activities are outside the supervision of their employers, then such actions are beyond the liability of the employers.

4. Yes, franchises worth the cost and the restrictions. Anyone would want to pay for and abide by a franchise agreement because through the agreement the franchisee would receive a constant supply of raw materials and finished products for sale.

Note: If you liked the answer please give an Up-vote, this will be quite encouraging for me, thank you!