Carpenter v. Payette Valley Cooperative, Inc.
Idaho Supreme Court
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
- Davenport v. BurkeIdaho Supreme Court · 1917
- Clark v. GneitingIdaho Supreme Court · 1972
- Hammitt v. Virginia Mining Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1919
- Killinger v. IestIdaho Supreme Court · 1967
- Chamberlain v. the Amalgamated Sugar Co.Idaho Supreme Court · 1926
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.