S. F. McCotter & Son, Inc. v. O.H.A. Industries, Inc.

VAUGHN, Judge.

Plaintiff assigns as error the order entered granting a directed verdict in defendant’s favor. Plaintiff argues that the judge improperly excluded testimony which would have established that Bartels was an agent of the defendant with apparent authority to bind defendant to terms of a new oral contract. We disagree and therefore affirm the court’s order.

There are two contracts involved in the present cause. The first contract is the original purchase agreement of the automated grain dryer. It is admitted in defendant’s answer that on or about 26 Feburary 1975, plaintiff purchased…