Question

At a sign stating "10 Percent OFF Today Only" was posted at the camera counter at Orson's Department Store. The clerk at the camera counter suffered a heart attack while on duty. After the commotion had subsided, a well-dressed shopper walked behind the counter and cleverly changed the number on the sign from "l0" to "30." This imposter sold l0 cameras to customers in a few minutes, pocketed the cash from those who paid cash or made down payments in cash, and fled. The manager, finally realizing that the camera sales counter was unattended and also seeing the changed sign, began to smell a rat. She ran to the store exit nearest the camera counter looking for customers with bags bearing the camera department's distinctive snapshot logo. She stopped four customers at the exit who were happily leaving the store with their "discounted" expensive cameras. Under these circumstances,

	A.	the customers lose as they dealt with an imposter.
	B.	Orson's loses under the doctrine of apparent authority.
	C.	the customers win under the doctrine of implied authority.
	D.	the customers win under the doctrine of ratification by Orson's failure to stop the other six customers.

Joe Walters was employed by the Metropolitan Department Store as a driver of one of its delivery trucks. Under the terms of his employment he made deliveries daily along a designated route and brought the truck back to the store's garage for overnight storage. One day instead of returning to the garage as required, he drove the truck 20 miles north of the area he covered, expecting to attend a social function unrelated to his employment or to his employer's affairs. Through his negligence in operating the truck while en route, Walters seriously injured Richard Bunt. Walters caused the accident and was solely at fault. Bunt entered suit in tort against the store for damages for personal injuries, alleging that the store, as principal, was responsible for the tortious acts of its agents. Under these circumstances,

	A.	Metropolitan is not liable because Walters was an independent contractor.
	B.	Metropolitan is not liable because Walters had abandoned his employment and was engaged in an independent activity of his own.
	C.	Metropolitan is liable based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior.
	D.	Bunt can recover damages from both Walters and Metropolitan.

Seymore hires Jasper to work for him as a sales representative. Seymore specifically tells Jasper that any sale worth over $10,000 and any sale with a discount greater than 8% must have Seymore's express approval. Jasper signs a contract with a long-standing customer who is unaware of the limitation; the terms of the contract call for an 11% discount and is for the purchase of $25,000 worth of goods. Jasper did not get Seymore's approval prior to signing. In this situation:

	A.	Seymore is obligated to honor the contract.
	B.	Seymore is not obligated to honor the contract.
	C.	Jasper will be liable to the customer for the contract.
	D.	The customer has the option of voiding the contract.
	E.	Jasper has done nothing improper in this transaction.

In question #5 above, if a Court finds that Seymore is not obligated to the contract but Seymore decides to honor the contract anyway, Seymore's action is called:

	A.	indemnification
	B.	ratification
	C.	subrogation
	D.	reimbursement
	E.	adoption

In question #5 above, Jasper has breached which of the following duties which he owes to Seymore:

	A.	fiduciary
	B.	reasonable care
	C.	obedience
	D.	loyalty
	E.	notification

Answer 1

According to the situation given above I think that under these circumstances, the customers lose the product as they dealt with an imposter.

No other option can be implied here as they are not applicable.

So, let's understand why any other option is not applicable:

B. Orson's loses under doctrine of apparent authority: To understand thus point, first let's understand what is doctrine of apparent authority?

Doctrine of apparent authority states that a company will not be able to deny agent's authority if it knowingly permits any of its agents to act within the scope of authority.

This is not the case here as the person was an imposter and was not authorised by the company to conduct any such act.

C. The customers win under doctrine of implied authority: This is not the ase here. To understand it, we first need to understand doctrine of implied authority.

Implied authority is an authority that is neither expressed nor written in a contract, but it is assumed to have some authority by him to act on the behalf of the principal to conduct business.

Here, it is not applicable as there was no authority implied on the person making sales. Rather he was an imposter and fraudulently conducted sales.

D. The customers win under the doctrine of ratification by Orson's failure to stop other six customers: For understanding this, let's understand doctrine of ratification.

Doctrine of ratification comes into picture when a person has done something on the behalf of other person without his consent. The person on whose behalf ratification is done, can either adopt or disown it completely.

So ratification can not be done here as Orson's will never adopt the action done by imposter on their behalf.