Question

QUESTION 11 You are at home in Royal Oak on a beautiful Saturday preparing for the arrival later that evening of some dinner guests when your doorbell rings. At the door is an enthusiastic young woman wearing a polo shirt with the words "Royal Oak Good Restaurant and Bar" embroidered on it. Handing you a business card with the ROGRB logo and the title "Vice President" on it, the woman explains that she works for the ROGRB and has a great offer: for $20, you can purchase a book of coupons with discounts on ROGRB food and drinks. The total value of the coupons is over $300, she explains. Since ROGRB is one of your favorite restaurants, you make the purchase. Later on, you find out that the woman was, until the week before she visited you, a part owner in the restaurant, but that she and the other owner had a falling-out and she left the restaurant. You also learn that the coupons are invalid. What is a true statement about this situation? a. You most certainly have a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress against ROGRB. b. The woman had actual express authority to sell you the coupon book. c. The woman had apparent authority to sell you the coupon book. d. Although you might have a negligence action against ROGRB, it was your responsibility to call the restaurant to verify the woman's status as a representative and your failure to do so negates your ability to file suit.

Answer 1

Answer: option c. The woman had apparent authority to sell you the coupon book

Explanation:

The apparent authority arises when the partner without actual authority appears to be authorized to act on behalf of the partnership for a third party. In this case the woman is holding the business card with the ROGRB logo and the title of Vice-President and also had book of coupons with discounts on ROGRB food and drinks. The business card which shows her role in ROGRB provides her apparent authority to sell the coupons on behalf of ROGRB. Though the woman is terminated from the partnership one week before, the apparent authority continues until the third party receives notification that the authority had been terminated. In this case I have not received any notification regarding the termination and hence the apparent authority of the woman continues.

There are no signs of emotional distress mentioned in this case and the woman also had no express authority given through words or in writing to the woman to sell the coupons. The third party do not have the responsibility to call and check when there is valid reasons to believe the apparent authority of the agent and hence I should not be held liable for not calling the restaurant for checking the woman’s identity.