Fruit Orchards Farm in the Central Valley contracts with Agave Employment Agency which is expressly authorized to recruit and hire farm workers for the peach harvest. Agave recruits 15 migrant workers from out of state, gives them each a train ticket for $50 to get to the farm, and $25 for meals. Agave promised the workers good working and living conditions. The Agave workers work side-by-side with the Fruit Orchards workers, receive the same pay and do the same work. However, they are supervised by and receive their paychecks from Agave, which has a contract for the farm labor services with Fruit Orchards. The migrant workers experienced terrible living and working conditions, and multiple violations of labor laws. Nevertheless, Fruit Orchards does not involve itself in any of these matters and simply pays Agave for the labor services provided to pick the fruit, leaving these details up to Agave. The migrant workers then sue both Agave and Fruit Orchards. Agave admits liability to the workers, but does not have enough money to cover the damages. Fruit Orchards denies responsibility. You are the judge who is hearing this case.
a) What legal arguments would the workers make that Fruit Orchards is the principal of Agave?
b) What legal arguments would Fruit Orchards make that it is not the principal of Agave?
c) What would your ruling be as the judge of this case?