All questions
Question 1
You represent a client who owns a construction company. The company fired a project manager for poor performance. The company immediately deactivated the manager's email and building access but failed to collect his company-branded truck and business cards. A week later, the former manager, using the truck and cards, went to a long-time lumber supplier. He placed a large order for materials on the company's credit account, stating it was for a new project. The supplier, who had dealt with the manager for years and was unaware of his termination, filled the order.
What is your client's strongest argument for not being liable for the lumber order? Select one.
- The project manager had no actual authority because his employment had been terminated. (correct answer)
- The supplier should have verified the project manager's continued employment for such a large order.
- The project manager's actions constituted a fraud, which severs the company's liability.
- The company's deactivation of the manager's email constituted sufficient notice of termination to all third parties.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. While this argument will likely fail, it is the client's strongest available argument. Termination does extinguish actual authority, which is a necessary starting point for the defense. However, the company will probably still be bound due to lingering apparent authority created by allowing the manager to retain company property (truck and cards) and failing to notify known third parties of the termination. B is incorrect because suppliers generally have no duty to verify authority absent suspicious circumstances. C is incorrect because the agent's unauthorized acts do not automatically protect the principal when apparent authority exists. D is incorrect because internal actions do not constitute notice to external parties.
Question 2
A farmer hired a ranch hand to manage his cattle operation. The employment contract expressly authorized the ranch hand to purchase feed and veterinary supplies. One day, a severe and unexpected blizzard struck. The cattle were in a remote pasture, and the ranch hand realized they would likely freeze without immediate shelter. Unable to contact the farmer, the ranch hand contracted with a local construction company to erect a temporary emergency shelter, costing $8,000. This action was not mentioned in his employment contract.
Is the farmer liable for the $8,000 cost of the shelter? Select one.
- No, because the ranch hand had no express or apparent authority to enter into construction contracts.
- No, because the ranch hand exceeded the scope of his employment by acting without authorization.
- Yes, because the ranch hand had authority based on an emergency situation to protect the farmer's property. (correct answer)
- Yes, because the construction company could reasonably assume a ranch manager had authority to build a shelter.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The ranch hand acted with authority derived from the emergency. This is a form of implied actual authority. When an emergency occurs and the agent cannot consult the principal, the agent has implied authority to take reasonable actions to protect the principal's interests, even if those actions were not originally authorized. A and B are incorrect because they fail to account for the expansion of an agent's authority in an emergency. D is incorrect because the basis of liability here is not apparent authority (what the third party believed), but rather the agent's actual authority implied by the unforeseen circumstances.
Question 3
The president of a small, closely-held corporation, without consulting the other two shareholders/directors, signed a contract to sell the building that housed the company's entire operations. The corporate charter requires unanimous director approval for the sale of substantially all corporate assets. The buyer, a sophisticated real estate investor, knew the seller was a corporation and that the seller's business operated out of the building but did not inquire about the president's authority to make the sale.
What is the strongest basis for the corporation to void the sale contract? Select one.
- The president lacked express actual authority due to the charter's requirement for unanimous approval.
- The sale of substantially all assets is an extraordinary transaction outside a president's apparent authority. (correct answer)
- The buyer's failure to conduct due diligence regarding the president's authority constitutes a waiver of its right to enforce.
- The contract is voidable because the president breached his fiduciary duty to the corporation.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. While a corporate president has broad apparent authority for transactions in the ordinary course of business, the sale of substantially all of the corporation's assets is an extraordinary event. A third party, particularly a sophisticated one, cannot reasonably believe that a president has the unilateral authority for such a fundamental corporate change. This lack of reasonable belief defeats any claim of apparent authority. A is correct that the president lacked actual authority, but B is a stronger argument for voiding the contract with the third party, as it directly addresses the third party's reliance. C misstates the law; there is no waiver, but the failure to inquire is relevant to the reasonableness of the buyer's belief. D is true but is an internal matter between the president and the corporation; it does not automatically make the contract voidable against a third party.
Question 4
A woman gave her friend a specific power of attorney, properly executed and in writing, authorizing him to sell her vintage car for a price "no less than $50,000." The friend, while negotiating with a potential buyer, was offered $48,000 in cash. The friend accepted, believing the certainty of the cash sale was better for the woman than holding out for a higher, uncertain price. He signed the bill of sale as "[Friend's Name], as agent for [Woman's Name]." The buyer was not shown the power of attorney document but knew the friend was acting as an agent.
Is the woman bound by the contract to sell the car for $48,000? Select one.
- Yes, because the friend had apparent authority to sell the car, and the price term was a reasonable deviation.
- Yes, because the friend acted in good faith and had implied authority to accept a slightly lower price for a certain sale.
- No, because the friend violated the express limitation on his actual authority. (correct answer)
- No, because the buyer had a duty to inspect the power of attorney to determine the scope of the agent's authority.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The agent's authority was explicitly limited by the written power of attorney. By selling for less than the specified minimum price, he exceeded his actual authority. The agent's good faith belief is irrelevant when he violates a clear, express instruction. A is incorrect because there is no basis for apparent authority beyond the scope of the actual authority in this context; the principal did nothing to suggest the agent could violate the price term. B is incorrect because there is no implied authority to violate an express and specific instruction. D is a strong supporting argument but C is the most direct answer: the agent lacked authority. The fact that an agent is acting under a power of attorney often heightens a third party's duty to ascertain the scope of that authority.
Question 5
A client, the sole proprietor of a custom furniture business, authorized her lead carpenter to purchase a specific type of rare hardwood from a supplier. She instructed him, "Buy the lumber, but do not agree to any long-term supply contracts." The carpenter went to the supplier and purchased the wood. The supplier then offered a 10% discount on all future orders if the business would sign a one-year exclusive supply agreement. Believing it was a good deal, the carpenter signed the agreement on behalf of the business. The supplier was unaware of the owner's specific instructions.
On what basis would the supplier have the strongest argument to enforce the one-year exclusive supply agreement? Select one.
- The carpenter had implied authority to enter into beneficial contracts.
- The carpenter had apparent authority to sign the supply agreement. (correct answer)
- The owner ratified the contract by accepting the initial lumber delivery.
- The owner is estopped from denying the carpenter's authority.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The supplier's strongest argument is based on apparent authority. By sending the carpenter to transact business, the owner (principal) created a manifestation to the supplier (third party) that the carpenter had authority to conduct such business. It could be reasonable for the supplier to believe that a lead carpenter authorized to purchase materials also had authority to enter into a supply agreement, which is a common transaction in the industry. A is incorrect because the owner's express prohibition destroyed any implied actual authority. C is incorrect because ratification requires knowledge of all material facts of the unauthorized contract; accepting the initial lumber (which was authorized) does not ratify the separate, unauthorized supply agreement. D is incorrect as estoppel requires a detrimental reliance that is not clearly established here, and apparent authority is the more direct agency doctrine.
Question 6
The president of a small, closely-held corporation, without consulting the other two shareholders/directors, signed a contract to sell the building that housed the company's entire operations. The corporate charter requires unanimous director approval for the sale of substantially all corporate assets. The buyer, a sophisticated real estate investor, knew the seller was a corporation and that the seller's business operated out of the building but did not inquire about the president's authority to make the sale.
What is the strongest basis for the corporation to void the sale contract? Select one.
- The president lacked express actual authority due to the charter's requirement for unanimous approval.
- The sale of substantially all assets is an extraordinary transaction outside a president's apparent authority. (correct answer)
- The buyer's failure to conduct due diligence regarding the president's authority constitutes a waiver of its right to enforce.
- The contract is voidable because the president breached his fiduciary duty to the corporation.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. While a corporate president has broad apparent authority for transactions in the ordinary course of business, the sale of substantially all of the corporation's assets is an extraordinary event. A third party, particularly a sophisticated one, cannot reasonably believe that a president has the unilateral authority for such a fundamental corporate change. This lack of reasonable belief defeats any claim of apparent authority. A is correct that the president lacked actual authority, but B is a stronger argument for voiding the contract with the third party, as it directly addresses the third party's reliance. C misstates the law; there is no waiver, but the failure to inquire is relevant to the reasonableness of the buyer's belief. D is true but is an internal matter between the president and the corporation; it does not automatically make the contract voidable against a third party.
Question 7
A chef owned a restaurant and employed a purchasing agent to buy fresh produce daily. The chef told the agent, "Only buy organic produce from Green Farms." For a year, the agent did so. One day, Green Farms had a fire and could not make its delivery. To ensure the restaurant could open for dinner, the agent purchased produce of similar quality and price from a different supplier, Quality Produce. The chef was angry about the purchase and refused to pay the invoice from Quality Produce.
Is the chef liable to Quality Produce for the cost of the produce? Select one.
- No, because the agent disobeyed the chef's express instruction, thereby terminating his actual authority.
- No, because Quality Produce had never dealt with the agent before, so there could be no apparent authority.
- Yes, because the agent had apparent authority based on his title as purchasing agent for a restaurant.
- Yes, because the agent had implied authority to take reasonable steps in an emergency to keep the business running. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of agency law, specifically the different types of authority an agent can possess to bind a principal in contracts with third parties.
When an agent acts outside their express authority, they may still have implied authority to bind the principal if their actions are reasonably necessary to accomplish the principal's objectives. Here, the chef's express instruction was to buy only from Green Farms, but the underlying purpose was to ensure the restaurant had fresh produce to operate. When Green Farms couldn't deliver due to the fire, the agent faced an emergency that threatened the restaurant's ability to open. Purchasing similar quality produce from Quality Produce was a reasonable step to fulfill the chef's broader business objective of keeping the restaurant running.
Option A is wrong because disobeying express instructions doesn't automatically terminate actual authority—implied authority can still exist for emergency situations. Option B incorrectly focuses on the relationship between Quality Produce and the agent; apparent authority depends on what the principal communicates to third parties about the agent's authority, not prior dealings. Option C, while touching on apparent authority concepts, isn't the strongest legal theory here since it's more general and doesn't address the specific emergency circumstances.
Option D correctly identifies that implied authority extends to reasonable emergency measures that serve the principal's interests, even when they technically violate express instructions.
Remember: On agency questions, look for emergency situations where an agent's actions, though outside express authority, reasonably serve the principal's broader business purposes—this often creates implied authority.
Question 8
You are advising a client who runs a small publishing house. The house's chief editor, whose job is to acquire manuscripts, attended a writers' conference. At the conference, she signed a contract with a famous author, promising a $500,000 advance. The editor's employment agreement, which the author has never seen, caps her authority to offer advances at $100,000. However, the publishing house's website and marketing materials describe the chief editor as having "full authority to acquire and contract for our next bestseller."
What is the most likely reason the publishing house would be bound by the $500,000 contract? Select one.
- The editor had implied actual authority because acquiring manuscripts is her primary job function.
- The editor had apparent authority based on the public representations made by the publishing house. (correct answer)
- The contract is enforceable because the limitation on the editor's authority was in a private document.
- The editor had inherent agency power to bind her principal to contracts of this nature.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The publishing house is likely bound on a theory of apparent authority. The house's public statements on its website that the editor had "full authority" constitute a manifestation to third parties, including the author, that the editor could enter into such contracts. The author could reasonably rely on these public representations. A is incorrect because the express $100,000 limit in her employment contract negates any implied actual authority for a larger amount. C is a true statement, but it is the reason why apparent authority exists, not the legal doctrine itself; B is the more precise legal answer. D is incorrect because "inherent agency power" is a less-common, more ambiguous doctrine, and apparent authority provides a clear and direct basis for liability.
Question 9
The board of directors of a manufacturing company passed a resolution authorizing its CEO to "negotiate and execute all contracts necessary for the acquisition of a new warehouse facility in the city." The CEO located a suitable warehouse and signed a purchase contract. As part of the deal, to secure favorable terms, the CEO also signed a separate five-year agreement with the seller's logistics company to handle all shipping from that new facility. The board was unaware of this secondary agreement.
Is the manufacturing company likely bound by the five-year logistics agreement? Select one.
- No, because the board resolution did not expressly authorize the CEO to enter into a shipping contract.
- No, because the logistics agreement is a separate transaction that falls outside the CEO's apparent authority.
- Yes, because the CEO had implied actual authority to take actions reasonably necessary to complete the authorized acquisition. (correct answer)
- Yes, because as CEO, the executive has inherent authority to enter into any contract that benefits the company.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The CEO had implied actual authority. Actual authority includes not only what is expressly stated but also what is implied to carry out the principal's objectives. The authority to "negotiate and execute all contracts necessary" for the acquisition can reasonably be interpreted by the agent (the CEO) to include ancillary agreements that facilitate the main transaction, especially if they secure favorable terms. A is incorrect because authority need not be expressly stated if it is necessary to accomplish the express goal. B is incorrect because a third party would likely see this as part of the CEO's apparent authority to manage the business and close deals. D uses the term "inherent authority," which is a less favored concept, and states the power too broadly; a CEO's authority is not unlimited.
Question 10
A partner in a general partnership that operates an accounting firm signed a contract to purchase a high-performance sports car in the partnership's name. The partnership agreement requires a majority vote for any asset purchase over $25,000 that is not in the ordinary course of business. The car cost $150,000. The car dealership's owner knew the purchaser was a partner in the firm but did not inquire about the purpose of the car or the partner's specific authority.
Is the partnership likely liable for the contract to purchase the sports car? Select one.
- Yes, because a partner is an agent of the partnership and has actual authority to bind it.
- Yes, because the partner had apparent authority to bind the partnership to any contract.
- No, because purchasing a sports car is not an act for apparently carrying on in the ordinary course the partnership's business. (correct answer)
- No, because the dealership had a duty to inspect the partnership agreement to verify the partner's authority.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under partnership law (like RUPA), a partner has apparent authority to bind the partnership for acts done in the ordinary course of the partnership's business. Purchasing a $150,000 sports car is not in the ordinary course of business for an accounting firm. Therefore, the partner lacked apparent authority for this act. A is incorrect because the partner lacked actual authority due to the partnership agreement's restriction. B is incorrect because a partner's apparent authority is not unlimited; it is confined to the scope of the partnership's business. D is incorrect because a third party generally has no duty to inspect a partnership agreement, but they cannot enforce a contract if they know or should know the partner lacks authority, which is the case when the act is clearly outside the ordinary course of business.
Question 11
You represent a client who owns a construction company. The company fired a project manager for poor performance. The company immediately deactivated the manager's email and building access but failed to collect his company-branded truck and business cards. A week later, the former manager, using the truck and cards, went to a long-time lumber supplier. He placed a large order for materials on the company's credit account, stating it was for a new project. The supplier, who had dealt with the manager for years and was unaware of his termination, filled the order.
What is your client's strongest argument for not being liable for the lumber order? Select one.
- The project manager had no actual authority because his employment had been terminated. (correct answer)
- The supplier should have verified the project manager's continued employment for such a large order.
- The project manager's actions constituted a fraud, which severs the company's liability.
- The company's deactivation of the manager's email constituted sufficient notice of termination to all third parties.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. While this argument will likely fail, it is the client's strongest available argument. Termination does extinguish actual authority, which is a necessary starting point for the defense. However, the company will probably still be bound due to lingering apparent authority created by allowing the manager to retain company property (truck and cards) and failing to notify known third parties of the termination. B is incorrect because suppliers generally have no duty to verify authority absent suspicious circumstances. C is incorrect because the agent's unauthorized acts do not automatically protect the principal when apparent authority exists. D is incorrect because internal actions do not constitute notice to external parties.
Question 12
A real estate developer hired an agent to acquire several parcels of land for a new project. The agency agreement was in writing and specified that the agent was authorized to offer up to $200,000 per acre. The agent approached a landowner and, during negotiations, falsely stated, "The developer has authorized me to go as high as $250,000 per acre, so my offer of $230,000 is a great deal for you." The landowner, relying on this statement, accepted the $230,000 offer. The developer had made no representations of any kind directly to the landowner.
Is the developer legally obligated to purchase the land for $230,000 per acre? Select one.
- Yes, because the agent was a special agent for the developer, making the developer's representations binding.
- Yes, because the agent's statements created apparent authority to offer the higher price.
- No, because the agent's authority cannot be created by the agent's own statements to the third party. (correct answer)
- No, because the agent's misrepresentation of authority constitutes a fraud that voids the contract.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The developer is not bound because the agent lacked both actual and apparent authority for the $230,000 price. The agent's actual authority was expressly limited to $200,000. Apparent authority arises from the principal's manifestations to the third party, not the agent's. Since the developer made no representations to the landowner, the agent's own false statements cannot create apparent authority. A is incorrect because the agent's status does not change the source of authority. B is incorrect because it misstates the source of apparent authority. D is incorrect because while the agent's actions may be fraudulent, the primary reason the developer is not bound is the lack of authority, which is a more direct answer to the enforceability of the contract against the principal.
Question 13
A farmer hired a ranch hand to manage his cattle operation. The employment contract expressly authorized the ranch hand to purchase feed and veterinary supplies. One day, a severe and unexpected blizzard struck. The cattle were in a remote pasture, and the ranch hand realized they would likely freeze without immediate shelter. Unable to contact the farmer, the ranch hand contracted with a local construction company to erect a temporary emergency shelter, costing $8,000. This action was not mentioned in his employment contract.
Is the farmer liable for the $8,000 cost of the shelter? Select one.
- No, because the ranch hand had no express or apparent authority to enter into construction contracts.
- No, because the ranch hand exceeded the scope of his employment by acting without authorization.
- Yes, because the ranch hand had authority based on an emergency situation to protect the farmer's property. (correct answer)
- Yes, because the construction company could reasonably assume a ranch manager had authority to build a shelter.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The ranch hand acted with authority derived from the emergency. This is a form of implied actual authority. When an emergency occurs and the agent cannot consult the principal, the agent has implied authority to take reasonable actions to protect the principal's interests, even if those actions were not originally authorized. A and B are incorrect because they fail to account for the expansion of an agent's authority in an emergency. D is incorrect because the basis of liability here is not apparent authority (what the third party believed), but rather the agent's actual authority implied by the unforeseen circumstances.
Question 14
You are advising a client who runs a small publishing house. The house's chief editor, whose job is to acquire manuscripts, attended a writers' conference. At the conference, she signed a contract with a famous author, promising a $500,000 advance. The editor's employment agreement, which the author has never seen, caps her authority to offer advances at $100,000. However, the publishing house's website and marketing materials describe the chief editor as having "full authority to acquire and contract for our next bestseller."
What is the most likely reason the publishing house would be bound by the $500,000 contract? Select one.
- The editor had implied actual authority because acquiring manuscripts is her primary job function.
- The editor had apparent authority based on the public representations made by the publishing house. (correct answer)
- The contract is enforceable because the limitation on the editor's authority was in a private document.
- The editor had inherent agency power to bind her principal to contracts of this nature.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The publishing house is likely bound on a theory of apparent authority. The house's public statements on its website that the editor had "full authority" constitute a manifestation to third parties, including the author, that the editor could enter into such contracts. The author could reasonably rely on these public representations. A is incorrect because the express $100,000 limit in her employment contract negates any implied actual authority for a larger amount. C is a true statement, but it is the reason why apparent authority exists, not the legal doctrine itself; B is the more precise legal answer. D is incorrect because "inherent agency power" is a less-common, more ambiguous doctrine, and apparent authority provides a clear and direct basis for liability.
Question 15
A woman gave her friend a specific power of attorney, properly executed and in writing, authorizing him to sell her vintage car for a price "no less than $50,000." The friend, while negotiating with a potential buyer, was offered $48,000 in cash. The friend accepted, believing the certainty of the cash sale was better for the woman than holding out for a higher, uncertain price. He signed the bill of sale as "[Friend's Name], as agent for [Woman's Name]." The buyer was not shown the power of attorney document but knew the friend was acting as an agent.
Is the woman bound by the contract to sell the car for $48,000? Select one.
- Yes, because the friend had apparent authority to sell the car, and the price term was a reasonable deviation.
- Yes, because the friend acted in good faith and had implied authority to accept a slightly lower price for a certain sale.
- No, because the friend violated the express limitation on his actual authority. (correct answer)
- No, because the buyer had a duty to inspect the power of attorney to determine the scope of the agent's authority.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. The agent's authority was explicitly limited by the written power of attorney. By selling for less than the specified minimum price, he exceeded his actual authority. The agent's good faith belief is irrelevant when he violates a clear, express instruction. A is incorrect because there is no basis for apparent authority beyond the scope of the actual authority in this context; the principal did nothing to suggest the agent could violate the price term. B is incorrect because there is no implied authority to violate an express and specific instruction. D is a strong supporting argument but C is the most direct answer: the agent lacked authority. The fact that an agent is acting under a power of attorney often heightens a third party's duty to ascertain the scope of that authority.
Question 16
Your client retained an attorney to represent her in a personal injury lawsuit. The client specifically instructed the attorney, "Do not accept any settlement offer under $50,000 without my final approval." During a pretrial conference with opposing counsel and the judge, the attorney received an offer of $45,000. Believing it was the best possible outcome, the attorney accepted the offer on the record, stating, "My client has authorized me to accept this amount." Opposing counsel had no knowledge of the specific limitation on the attorney's authority.
Is your client likely bound by the $45,000 settlement? Select one.
- No, because an attorney's authority to settle a claim must be express, and the attorney exceeded his express authority. (correct answer)
- No, because the attorney's misrepresentation to the court constitutes a fraud that invalidates the settlement.
- Yes, because the attorney had apparent authority to settle the case on behalf of the client.
- Yes, because the attorney had implied authority to make tactical decisions in the litigation.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. The authority to settle a lawsuit is a fundamental right that belongs to the client. An attorney has no implied or apparent authority to settle a claim without the client's express authorization. Unlike other decisions, a third party cannot reasonably assume an attorney has unilateral authority to settle. Therefore, the secret instruction is not the key issue; the key is that the authority to settle must be express and specific. The attorney acted outside that express authority. B is less precise; the core issue is lack of authority, not fraud. C is incorrect because courts consistently hold that attorneys lack apparent authority to bind clients to settlements. D is incorrect because settlement is a fundamental decision, not a tactical one like deciding which witness to call.
Question 17
You are representing a client, a grain supplier. Your client was approached by a man who claimed to be the purchasing agent for a large farming cooperative. The man provided a business card with the co-op's logo and his title. He negotiated and signed a large purchase order on behalf of the co-op. In fact, the man had never been employed by the co-op; he had simply printed fake business cards. The co-op had no knowledge of the man or his actions until your client sent an invoice.
Is the farming cooperative liable for the purchase order? Select one.
- Yes, because the man had apparent authority created by the professional-looking business card.
- Yes, if the client's reliance on the man's representations was reasonable under the circumstances.
- No, because the client had a duty to verify the agent's employment status with the cooperative directly.
- No, because the man was an imposter who was never an agent of the cooperative. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of agency law, specifically the requirements for establishing apparent authority. When someone claims to represent another party, you need to analyze whether a true agency relationship exists and what creates liability.
The correct answer is D because apparent authority requires some manifestation or conduct by the principal (the cooperative) that would reasonably lead a third party to believe an agency relationship exists. Here, the cooperative never took any action that could have created the appearance of authority. The imposter acted entirely on his own by creating fake business cards and falsely representing himself. Since the cooperative had no knowledge of this person and never manifested any indication that he was their agent, no apparent authority was created.
Answer A is wrong because simply having a professional-looking business card doesn't create apparent authority. The card must be traceable to some action or manifestation by the principal, not created unilaterally by the imposter. Answer B incorrectly focuses on the client's reasonableness rather than whether the principal created apparent authority. While the client's reliance might have been reasonable, that alone doesn't establish the cooperative's liability without the cooperative having done something to create the appearance of authority. Answer C is incorrect because there's generally no legal duty to verify an agent's credentials when dealing with someone who appears to have authority.
Remember: For apparent authority questions, always ask what the alleged principal did to create the appearance of an agency relationship. If the "agent" acted entirely alone without any manifestation from the principal, no apparent authority exists regardless of how convincing the imposter was.
Question 18
A client, the sole proprietor of a custom furniture business, authorized her lead carpenter to purchase a specific type of rare hardwood from a supplier. She instructed him, "Buy the lumber, but do not agree to any long-term supply contracts." The carpenter went to the supplier and purchased the wood. The supplier then offered a 10% discount on all future orders if the business would sign a one-year exclusive supply agreement. Believing it was a good deal, the carpenter signed the agreement on behalf of the business. The supplier was unaware of the owner's specific instructions.
On what basis would the supplier have the strongest argument to enforce the one-year exclusive supply agreement? Select one.
- The carpenter had implied authority to enter into beneficial contracts.
- The carpenter had apparent authority to sign the supply agreement. (correct answer)
- The owner ratified the contract by accepting the initial lumber delivery.
- The owner is estopped from denying the carpenter's authority.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. The supplier's strongest argument is based on apparent authority. By sending the carpenter to transact business, the owner (principal) created a manifestation to the supplier (third party) that the carpenter had authority to conduct such business. It could be reasonable for the supplier to believe that a lead carpenter authorized to purchase materials also had authority to enter into a supply agreement, which is a common transaction in the industry. A is incorrect because the owner's express prohibition destroyed any implied actual authority. C is incorrect because ratification requires knowledge of all material facts of the unauthorized contract; accepting the initial lumber (which was authorized) does not ratify the separate, unauthorized supply agreement. D is incorrect as estoppel requires a detrimental reliance that is not clearly established here, and apparent authority is the more direct agency doctrine.
Question 19
The owner of an art gallery told her assistant to sell a specific painting, instructing him, "Don't sell it for less than $10,000." Later that day, the owner discovered the painting was a rare work by a famous artist and was worth at least $100,000. She immediately called the assistant's cell phone and left a voicemail, "Do not sell the painting! I've learned it's very valuable. Pull it from the floor immediately." The assistant's phone was off, and he did not receive the message. An hour later, he sold the painting to a collector for $11,000.
At the moment the assistant sold the painting, what was the status of his authority? Select one.
- He had actual authority because he had not yet received the principal's revocation.
- He had apparent authority because the gallery held him out as having the power to sell.
- He had neither actual nor apparent authority because the principal's revocation was effective when sent.
- He had no actual authority, but the gallery is bound by the sale based on apparent authority. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. The assistant's actual authority terminated when the owner revoked it, regardless of whether he received the message. An agent's actual authority is based on their reasonable belief, and that belief is no longer reasonable once the principal communicates a revocation. However, the gallery (principal) is still bound by the sale because of apparent authority. The gallery placed the assistant in a position where the collector (third party) would reasonably believe he had the authority to sell the painting. Since the collector was unaware of the revocation, the apparent authority persists. A is incorrect because actual authority terminates upon revocation by the principal, not upon receipt by the agent. B is an incomplete answer because it doesn't address the lack of actual authority. C is incorrect because apparent authority still existed.
Question 20
You are representing a client, a grain supplier. Your client was approached by a man who claimed to be the purchasing agent for a large farming cooperative. The man provided a business card with the co-op's logo and his title. He negotiated and signed a large purchase order on behalf of the co-op. In fact, the man had never been employed by the co-op; he had simply printed fake business cards. The co-op had no knowledge of the man or his actions until your client sent an invoice.
Is the farming cooperative liable for the purchase order? Select one.
- Yes, because the man had apparent authority created by the professional-looking business card.
- Yes, if the client's reliance on the man's representations was reasonable under the circumstances.
- No, because the client had a duty to verify the agent's employment status with the cooperative directly.
- No, because the man was an imposter who was never an agent of the cooperative. (correct answer)
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of agency law, specifically the requirements for establishing apparent authority. When someone claims to represent another party, you need to analyze whether a true agency relationship exists and what creates liability.
The correct answer is D because apparent authority requires some manifestation or conduct by the principal (the cooperative) that would reasonably lead a third party to believe an agency relationship exists. Here, the cooperative never took any action that could have created the appearance of authority. The imposter acted entirely on his own by creating fake business cards and falsely representing himself. Since the cooperative had no knowledge of this person and never manifested any indication that he was their agent, no apparent authority was created.
Answer A is wrong because simply having a professional-looking business card doesn't create apparent authority. The card must be traceable to some action or manifestation by the principal, not created unilaterally by the imposter. Answer B incorrectly focuses on the client's reasonableness rather than whether the principal created apparent authority. While the client's reliance might have been reasonable, that alone doesn't establish the cooperative's liability without the cooperative having done something to create the appearance of authority. Answer C is incorrect because there's generally no legal duty to verify an agent's credentials when dealing with someone who appears to have authority.
Remember: For apparent authority questions, always ask what the alleged principal did to create the appearance of an agency relationship. If the "agent" acted entirely alone without any manifestation from the principal, no apparent authority exists regardless of how convincing the imposter was.