THE GIG ECONOMY INTEROFFICE MEMO

THE GIG ECONOMY INTEROFFICE MEMO

To: Investment Firm

From: (Insert)

Date: February 26, 2020

Subject: Analysis of Uber’s Legal Exposure for the conduct of its Drivers

Fundamentally, Uber formulate an in-depth reflection concerning the various legal probes that might arise due to the drivers’ behavior. Uber should have a clear definition of the vital issues and legal jargon associated with the Corporate Governance Law to curtail the chances of breaking the legal articulations, which might translate to adversely impactful implications. Analyzing, understanding, and reflecting on various legal articulations is fundamental to enable Uber to avoid breaching the law, which might translate to operational challenges. There are several principles of the agency whose consideration is essential to allow Uber to continue enjoying functional success. The purpose of this memo is to reflect on the basic principles of the agency which are applicable in Uber’s situation and its working relationship with the employees/drivers, and some of the essential considerations that can enable Uber to avoid legal probes that might translate to failed operations.

The Main Principles of the Agency

The conduct of Uber’s drivers exposes it to legal concerns that need considerations to avoid operational challenges. Uber should consider some of the fundamental factors when reflecting on its exposure to legal probes. The law of corporate governance reflects on some of the legal articulations which should guide Uber when reflecting on the behavior/conduct of its drivers and the probable implication if such employees breach the legal articulations. The principle of actual authority is one of the essential considerations that should guide Uber’s day-to-day operations (Adams et al., 2018). Actual express authorization and actual implied authority are some of the principles of the agency, which can influence legal considerations when looking into the operation of Uber. The principle of actual express authorization reflects on the explicit agreement with drivers, which acts as their agents and the requirements to participate in specific actions. Such actions include the day-to-day operations of Uber, including the orders to drop their clients from one place to the other.

Actual, implied authority is another principle which reflects on the probable legal matters considering the operations of Uber as far as the provision of their daily services to customers is concerned. The principle considers the entry of an agent who works as the drivers to Uber. The principle does not come up with specific authorization to particular actions taken by workers. As such, the agent has the legal authority to have an inference that he/she possesses the judicial power to reflect on specific actions as delegated. The principle of apparent authority is another essential consideration when reflecting on Uber’s performance. Under this principle, the principal does not formulate an agreement with the agent but rather the third party. The agent considers the orders given by the principal when rendering services to the third party/customer. The principle of ratification is another essential consideration when reflecting on the performance of Uber and probable legal concerns. The principle occurs when there is no provision of authority, but the principles agree to come into a contract after learning about it. Such an aspect of ratification binds the principal. Acceptance by Uber Company to have such ratification leads to its binding.

Uber’s liability for the Drivers’ Conduct

There are several considerations towards determining whether Uber Company is liable for the behavior/conduct of the drivers. Uber should reflect on such circumstances to curtail the chances of breaching the set legal frameworks, which might ultimately translate to operational problems. One of the circumstances leading to Uber being held liable for the drivers’ actions is when the actions of the agent are within the scope of apparent authority. Secondly, Uber might be held responsible for drivers’ actions if the agents’ working actions are within the scope of apparent authority. Uber offers several services, including UberPOP, UberTAXI, AND Uberpool, among others (Dosen & Rosolen, 2016). Consideration of the principles of the agency is critical in enabling Uber to understand some of the probable liabilities as a result of their agent’s actions or behavior. The liability occurs only when the driver is offering services as designated by Uber.

Steps taken by Uber

Uber considered the essentiality of formulating measures to curtail the chances of legal probes if the drivers’ actions go against the legal frameworks. Uber considered the formulation of several means to minimize its exposure to such legal inquiries depending on the drivers’ actions as they offer services to clients (Tucker, 2018). One of the actions relates to the need for drivers to act prudently in instances when actions are ostensible. Uber appreciates the need to allow the drivers to work according to their conscience when faced with such situations. Secondly, the aspect of authority is ignored when the drivers are faced with an emergency. As such, Uber avoids limiting its liabilities to the hired drivers/agents unless in situations where the agent agrees to be held liable. The adoption of such measures aimed at restricting some of the legal liabilities resulting from the actions of their agents/drivers. The move was perfect since liabilities due to the breach of legal frameworks would pose adverse effects and ultimate risks to an unpredictable future and failure.

Thank you

References

Adams, A., Freedman, J., & Prassl, J. (2018). Rethinking Legal Taxonomies for the Gig Economy: Tax Law, Employment Law, and Economic Incentives. Oxford Review of Economic Policy (Forthcoming).

Dosen, I., & Rosolen, H. (2016). Uber and ridesharing.

Tucker, E. (2018). Uber and the Unmaking and Remaking of Taxi Capitalisms: Technology, Law, and Resistance in Historical Perspective.