Bolt Corp. dismissed Ace as its general sales agent and notified all of Ace's known customers by letter. Young Corp., a retail outlet located outside of Ace's previously assigned sales territory, had never dealt with Ace. Young knew of Ace as a result of various business contacts. After his dismissal, Ace sold Young goods, to be delivered by Bolt, and received from Young a cash deposit for 20% of the purchase price. It was not unusual for an agent in Ace's previous position to receive cash deposits. In an action by Young against Bolt on the sales contract, Young will:
a.
Win, because a principal is an insurer of an agent's acts.
b.
Lose, because Ace lacked any express authority to make the contract.
c.
Win, because Bolt's notice was inadequate to terminate Ace's apparent authority.
d.
Lose, because Ace lacked any implied authority to make the contract.
So, the answer is c for the following reason: Although Bolt gave known customer's notice of Ace's dismissal, some courts might also require a notice placed in a newspaper to terminate Ace's apparent authority as to people, like Young, who had heard of Ace.
Should i assume that in EVERY case this is true? I selected D because I had thought it was adequate. I guess if I don't see that he put it in a newspaper that D is wrong 9 times out of 10?
Dumb question if you ask me. lol
AUD: DONE
FAR: DONE
BEC: DONE
REG: DONE
IM GOING TO BE A CPA!!!!!
.