Hoddeson v. Koos Bros NJ 1957
Facts: In
August 1956, the plaintiff, Mrs. Hoddeson, went to defendants furniture
store and had decided to purchase a mirror and bedroom furniture. A man
approached her in the furniture store to assist her with her
purchase. The man pulled out a pad upon which he presumably recorded her
order and calculated the total purchase price to be $168.50. Mrs.
Hoddeson handed to him the $168.50 in cash and failed to get a
receipt. He informed her the articles other than those on display were
not in stock, and that reproductions would upon notice be delivered to
her in September. Mrs. Hoddeson did not receive her furniture by
September so she inquired about it with defendant. At this point,
defendant notified Mrs. Hoddeson that its records failed to disclose any
such sale to her and any such monetary credit in payment. It turns out
that the person who served Mrs. Hoddeson was not a salesman for
defendant. Mrs. Hoddeson brought this action to recover her lost money.
Issue: Does the evidence circumstantiate the presence of apparent authority in the salesman/impostor?
Holding: Where
a proprietor of a place of business by his dereliction of duty enables
one who is not his agent conspicuously to act as such and ostensibly to
transact the proprietor’s business with a patron in the establishment,
the appearances being of such a character as to lead a person of
ordinary prudence and circumspection to believe that the impostor was in
truth the proprietor’s agent, in such circumstances the law will not
permit the proprietor defensively to avail himself of the impostor’s
lack of authority and thus escape liability for the consequential loss
thereby sustained by the customer.
Reasoning:
-Actual authority?
-Probably not. He is an impostor and does not even work for the store.
-Apparent Authority?
-Better argument. Some manifestation that the third party can trace
back to the principal that makes it appear that he works
there. But the reality is that he doesn’t even work there, so you
can’t say there is apparent authority.
-Undisclosed Principal?
-Not his actual principal so it cannot be an undisclosed principal.
*New
Rule: 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.
-General
Point: Scope of the authority of the agent may extend beyond what the
principal and agent actually agreed to because we need to be confident
that we can rely on the fact that the agent is acting within the scope
of the authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment