ONE HOUR VALET OF AMERICA, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
HERMAN KECK, JR., AND C. C. BATES, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence was sufficient to find the agent had apparent authority or that the appellant ratified the agent's actions.
Plaintiff attempted to enter a franchise agreement with appellant OHVA, making a down payment check payable to appellant's agent, Bates. Bates abscond…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ostensible Authority cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an action for wrongful conversion. Appellant, One Hour Valet of America, Inc., hereinafter called “O H V A”, was one of two defendants below. The remaining defendant, one C. C. Bates, had a default judgment rendered against him and has been named party appellee under Rule 3.11(a) Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. Appellee Herman Keck, Jr. was plaintiff below. The case was decided by the court, without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff-appellee and against the defendant-appellant.
Simply stated, plaintiff attempted to enter into a franchise agreement with OHVA for use of a dry cleaning process owned by OHVA. Plaintiff made his check for the down payment payable to appellant’s agent, Bates, who is alleged to have had apparent authority to accept the check. Bates absconded with the money and OH VA refused to go through with the franchise and refused to refund the money, hence the suit and judgment against OH VA and consequent appeal to this court.
Although three points were presented on appeal, the controlling point is whether the evidence as a whole was sufficient for the court to find that the agent had apparent or ostensible authority to accept the check; or in the alternative, whether appellant ratified its agent’s activities by its own actions.
Whether acts are within the scope of an agent’s apparent authority or whether the acts were ratified by the principal are determinable as questions of fact, and the findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Bogue Electric Mfg. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, C.A. 5, 269 F.2d 1; Bush Grocery Company v. Conely, 1911, 61 Fla. 131, 55 So. 867; cf. Stiles v. Gor*84don Land Co., Fla.1950, 44 So.2d 417. We have carefully reviewed the record and find no prejudicial error.
Affirmed.
KANNER, Acting C. J., and ALLEN and WHITE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…erred in express terms, but may be apparent or implied under justifying circumstances); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 59 Fla. 116, 52 So. 801 (1910); Parsley Bros. Constr. Co. v. Humphrey, 136 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); One Hour Valet, Inc. v. Keck, 157 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (stating that whether acts are within scope of an agent’s apparent authority or whether acts were ratified by the principal are questions of fact, and will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous). Thé trial court could have inf…
-
Sheldon Greene & Assocs., Inc. v. Rosinda Invs., N.V., 475 So. 2d 925 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…f alleged agent to receive notice for his principal); American Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. Miami Ventilated Awning Mfg. Co., 161 So. 2d 699, 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (extent of agent’s authority is an issue of fact); One Hour Valet of Am., Inc., v. Keck, 157 So. 2d 83, 83 (Fla.2d DCA 1963) (same; "[trial court’s] findings will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.”). . See, e.g., Shuler v. Allen, 76 So. 2d 879, 882-83 (Fla.1955); Taylor v. Dorsey, 155 Fla. 305, 308, 19 So. 2d 876, 878 (1944); Fearick v. Smu…
-
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Thurman G. Peninger and Claudia G. Peninger, 603 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…of the principal’s intent to ratify the act in question is required. Pel-loni, 370 So. 2d at 452. Moreover, the issue of whether an agent’s act has been ratified [*59] by the principal is a question of fact. One Hour Valet of America, Inc. v. Keck, 157 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963). Because there remains a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Thurman Peninger ratified his wife’s acts in the present case, the order of dismissal is reversed. REVERSED and REMANDED. PETERSON and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Stiles v. Gordon Land Co., 44 So.2d 417 (Fla. 1950)
- T. G. Bush Grocery Co. v. Conely, 61 Fla. 131 (Fla. 1911)
- Bogue Elec. Mfg. Co. v. Coconut Grove Bank, 269 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1959)