BLAW 3058 Study Guide - Apparent Authority
Document Summary
Facts: the defendant, cta, is being sued by schoenberger for not upholding a promise of a 500 raise within a year. A contractual agreement stating salary was agreed upon by plaintiff for 19800 and plaintiff accepted. 500 would be added at next review time, to which he agreed. The next review was canceled due to additional time needed for proper evaluation and. When the plaintiff actually did get his review, no raise was given. Issue: was the interviewer an agent of cta. Discussion: trial court ruled it was inconceivable for plaintiff to believe the hr interviewer to have final authority and it was not shown a promise was made to plaintiff by authorized agent of cta. The hr interviewer s authority must be traced to determine if he was an authorized agent to make such a promise. Hr interviewer was in a lower level position and never had authority to set salary. He never implied that he had such authority.
