Legal Opinion · Dissent

Carpenter v. Payette Valley Cooperative, Inc.

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided April 28, 1978No. 11850Published

1DissentShepard, Chief Justice

For the reasons that follow, I would reverse the decision of the trial court and order a new trial.

APPARENT AUTHORITY

The Co-Op ought to be held liable to Carpenter on the theory of apparent authority. “[A]pparent authority to do an act is created as to a third person [Carpenter] by written or spoken words or any other conduct of the principal which, reasonably interpreted, causes the third person to believe that the principal consents to have the act done on his behalf by the person purporting to act for him.” Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27 (1958). The majority argues that Carpenter…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Davenport v. BurkeIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
  2. Clark v. GneitingIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
  3. Hammitt v. Virginia Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1919
  4. Killinger v. IestIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
  5. Chamberlain v. the Amalgamated Sugar Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1926

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API