Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)

Citation
Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Parent Document
Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1980-02-05

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text

322 chars
While Civil Code section 2343 and Bayuk indicate that the agent will be held liable for his torts despite the fact that he acts for a principal, nothing in Bayuk suggests that the agent should be held liable under contractual theories. Bayuk merely states that the contract does not immunize the agent from tort liability.