For Your Data Hoddeson V. Koos Bros. Example Brief
December 01, 2020
Edit
Hoddeson v. Koos Bros.
FACTS
Plaintiff together with her trouble solid unit of measurement entered Defendant’s shop to buy chamber furniture. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 human approached Plaintiff purporting to last a salesman for Defendant store. Plaintiff gave salesman cash for slice of furniture to last delivered to her dwelling trouble solid at a after appointment because the salesman said that it was out of stock. Plaintiff did non become a receipt for the transaction. After the delivery appointment lapsed without a delivery, Plaintiff contacted Defendant. Defendant did non conduct keep a tape of the transaction, together with Plaintiff together with her trouble solid unit of measurement were non able to seat the salesperson from Defendant’s staff. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 jury found for Plaintiff, together with Defendant appealed, disputation that at that spot was a lack of evidence to found an way relationship.
HOLDING
D tin last estopped from asserting that no claim existed when at that spot was no way human relationship established. Defendant, equally a slice of furniture store, nonetheless owed a duty of assist to Plaintiff when she enters the shop together with has an expectation that she volition last tend to yesteryear an actual salesperson rather than an impostor. Therefore, a novel lawsuit was ordered inwards gild to permit Plaintiff to found a duty of care.
Plaintiff together with her trouble solid unit of measurement entered Defendant’s shop to buy chamber furniture. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 human approached Plaintiff purporting to last a salesman for Defendant store. Plaintiff gave salesman cash for slice of furniture to last delivered to her dwelling trouble solid at a after appointment because the salesman said that it was out of stock. Plaintiff did non become a receipt for the transaction. After the delivery appointment lapsed without a delivery, Plaintiff contacted Defendant. Defendant did non conduct keep a tape of the transaction, together with Plaintiff together with her trouble solid unit of measurement were non able to seat the salesperson from Defendant’s staff. Influenza A virus subtype H5N1 jury found for Plaintiff, together with Defendant appealed, disputation that at that spot was a lack of evidence to found an way relationship.
HOLDING
D tin last estopped from asserting that no claim existed when at that spot was no way human relationship established. Defendant, equally a slice of furniture store, nonetheless owed a duty of assist to Plaintiff when she enters the shop together with has an expectation that she volition last tend to yesteryear an actual salesperson rather than an impostor. Therefore, a novel lawsuit was ordered inwards gild to permit Plaintiff to found a duty of care.
ii. Burden of Proof – Party seeking to impose liability must essay out being of way relationship. “It is non the burden of the alleged master copy to disprove it.”
iii. Three Kinds of Agency Relationships
1. Express or existent authority which has been definitely granted.
2. Implied authority, that is, to create all that is proper, customarily incidental together with reasonably appropriate to the practise of the potency granted.
3. Apparent authority, such equally where the master copy yesteryear words, conduct, or other indicative manifestations has held out the someone to last his agent.
a. “The apparency together with appearance of potency must last shown to conduct keep been created yesteryear the manifestations of the alleged principal, together with non lone together with alone yesteryear proof of those of the supposed agent.”
b. à No apparent potency because Koos’ failure to constabulary its sales flooring does non constitute the requisite manifestation.
iv. Estoppel/Proprietor’s (Principal’s) Duty to Customer
1. Equitable doctrine. Binds defendant, but non plaintiff.
2. Definition – Some conduct (act or omission) that creates an appearance or about argue to mean value that at that spot is authority, but it must conduct keep been reasonable for the 3rd political party to rely (to its detriment) on the appearance.
3. Duty – Proprietor must practise reasonable assist together with vigilance to protect client from loss occasioned yesteryear the deceptions of an apparent salesman.
a. Focuses on proprietor’s failure to conduct keep reasonable steps.
4. ESTOPPEL – When proprietor breaches its duty, it cannot claim the defence forcefulness of lack of an way relationship.
a. Requires a modify inwards seat yesteryear the 3rd party. (Hoddeson paid coin for the furniture, which the imposter stole.)
i. Without this change, only apparent potency is available if at that spot is the requisite manifestation.
5. Rest. (3d) of Agency § 2.05 – “A someone who has non made a manifestation that an instrumentalist has potency equally an agent together with who is non otherwise liable equally a political party to a transaction purportedly done yesteryear the instrumentalist on that person’s trouble organisation human relationship is bailiwick to liability to a 3rd political party who justifiably is induced to brand a detrimental modify inwards seat because the transaction is believed to last on the person’s account, if
a. (1) the someone intentionally or carelessly caused such belief, or
b. (2) having let on of such belief together with that it mightiness get others to modify their positions, the someone did non conduct keep reasonable steps to notify them of the facts.
---
Interested inwards learning how to become the altitude grades inwards your law schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to written report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?