This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Why is it in the book, what is the learning point y The question presented is whether Spear (the agent) was authorized by Great National (the principal) to make the agreement.
Who are the players? (generic description) y y y Elliot (employee) Donald Spear (senior vice president of company) Great Nat l Life Ins. (company)
What happened y Agent of company made oral agreement with employee for 1 year employment. Court holds that there was evidence of Spear's apparent authority to offer a one year contract of employment to Elliott. Spear's primary responsibility at Great National was to add to the field vice-president staff. Pursuant to this delegated responsibility, Spear, who was located in the Dallas office, contacted Elliott in Atlanta, Georgia, and inquired as to his interest in a field vicepresident's position with Great National. Great National did not limit the use of this chain of communication to a particular time or to a particular condition of employment. In fact, Elliott testified that he did not at any time discuss the terms of his employment with any employee of Great National other than Spear. It was this fact which led Elliott to believe that Spear had the authority to offer Elliott a one year term of employment o The doctrine of apparent authority is based on estoppel, and one seeking to charge a principal through the apparent authority of an agent to bind the principal must prove such conduct on the part of the principal as would lead a reasonably prudent person, using diligence and discretion, to suppose that the agent has the authority he purports to exercise.... The doctrine of apparent authority is based on estoppel, and one seeking to charge a principal through the apparent authority of an agent to bind the principal must prove such conduct on the part of the principal as would lead a reasonably prudent person, using diligence and discretion, to suppose that the agent has the authority he purports to exercise....
Hoddeson v. Koos Bros. Why is it in the book, what is the learning point y The point here debated is whether or not the evidence circumstantiates the presence of apparent authority, and it is at this very point we come face to face with the general rule of law that the apparency and appearance of authority must be shown to have been created by the
v. what is the learning point Who are the players? (generic description) . he represented that those articles were not then available in stock. but also where in the department they were respectively on display.y y manifestations of the alleged principal. which significantly the store records disclosed to be true. A man approached her in a suit and asked if she needed assistance. For Customer. The rule that those who bargain without inquiry with an apparent agent do so at the risk and peril of an absence of the agent's authority has a patently impracticable application to the customers who patronize our modern department stores. unless he gleaned that information from the price tag. his prophetic representation concerning their prospective arrival in stock proved to be prescient. y y Rowen & Blair El. (furniture store) Apparent salesmen What happened y Woman goes to store to buy furniture for her house. Why is it in the book. guiding them without hesitation to the location of the mirror and then to that of the indicated bedroom furniture. Upon being informed of the type of the articles in which Mrs. He pulled out a pad to write down her request. and not alone and solely by proof of those of the supposed agent. and the rule that those bargaining without inquiry with an apparent agent do so at their own risk of an absence of the agent's authority is inapplicable. the duty of the proprietor also encircles the exercise of reasonable care and vigilance to protect the customer from loss occasioned by the deceptions of an apparent salesman. the proprietor cannot avail himself of the impostor's lack of authority and thus escape liability for the consequential loss sustained by the customer. he was not only sufficiently acquainted with their description. Who are the players? (generic description) y y y Hoddeson (shopper) Koos Bros. Broadly stated. She handed him cash for the furniture. The duty of a proprietor of a store encircles the exercise of reasonable care and diligence to protect a customer from loss occasioned by deceptions of an apparent salesman. Hoddeson was interested. Flushing Operating Corp. he accurately calculated their true sales prices and openly received the cash. Where a proprietor of a store by his dereliction of duty enables one not his agent conspicuously to act as such and ostensibly to transact the proprietor's business with a patron under circumstances leading customer of ordinary prudence to believe that the impostor was in truth the proprietor's agent. Co.
Rich Why is it in the book.What happened Perkins v. what is the learning point Who are the players? (generic description) What happened .