Crash Agrees To Have Steve Represent Him In Various Cases

Case Studycrash Agrees To Have Steve Represent Him In Various Transac

Crash has engaged Steve as his agent to manage various transactions, including performance contracts and endorsement deals. Crash explicitly informed Steve that his authority was limited to endorsement agreements. Despite this instruction, Steve signed a contract for Crash to attend a birthday party performance. The question arises whether Crash and Steve are liable for these contracts, given the scope of authority and the knowledge of third parties involved. This analysis considers each contract separately, examining the liability of Crash and Steve under agency law principles, including authority, apparent authority, and the knowledge of third parties.

Introduction

Agency law governs the relationships between principals, agents, and third parties in contractual transactions. A principal’s liability hinges on whether the agent acted within the scope of authority granted and whether third parties reasonably believed the agent had authority. In the case at hand, Crash’s explicit instructions to Steve and Steve’s subsequent actions raise questions about actual and apparent authority, which are crucial in determining liability. This paper analyzes three contracts—one with Jimmy and two with Fred—assessing whether Crash and Steve are liable for each based on the principles of agency law.

Liability of Crash and Steve in the Contracts

1. Contract with Jimmy for a performance at a bar

The first contract involves Steve arranging a performance at a bar with Jimmy. It is noted that Jimmy knew Steve was an agent, but he did not know whom Steve represented. Under agency law, a third party's knowledge that an individual is an agent does not necessarily establish that the agency partner or principal is also known or liable unless the third party is aware of the scope of the agent’s authority. Since Jimmy knew Steve was an agent but was unaware of the actual principal—Crash—and whether Steve had actual authority, the outcome depends on the notions of actual and apparent authority.

If Steve held actual authority—despite Crash’s instructions—Crash might be liable if the contract falls within the scope of the agent's authority. However, since Crash specifically told Steve that his authority was limited to endorsements, and the contract with Jimmy is for a performance at a bar (which is not an endorsement), it is unlikely that Crash authorized this arrangement. Therefore, Crash is probably not liable if strict adherence to the instruction is maintained.

Conversely, Steve, acting within the scope of his actual authority (if any), could be held personally liable, especially considering he signed the contract on Crash’s behalf, and Jimmy knew he was dealing with an agent. Since Jimmy did not know Crash’s identity, unless Steve acted outside his authority, Steve might be liable as the agent who entered into a contract without proper authority or disclosure to the third party.

2. Contract with Fred for an endorsement

The second contract is an endorsement agreement with Fred, who has no knowledge about Steve's principal. Here, the key issue is whether Steve had apparent authority or if Crash ratified the contract afterward. Given that Crash explicitly told Steve that the only deals he could make were endorsements, and Steve signed an endorsement contract, the contract aligns with the scope of delegated authority.

Fred not knowing whom Steve represented complicates this scenario. However, since the contract was for an endorsement, and Crash’s instructions allowed for endorsement deals, Crash can be held liable if it is proved that Steve was acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority. In agency law, apparent authority arises when a third party reasonably believes an agent is authorized due to the principal's conduct or representations.

In this case, Crash’s letter to Bob, stating Steve's authority to negotiate deals, could create apparent authority, making Crash liable for Fred’s endorsement contract. Conversely, Steve may also be liable if he lacked actual authority but still acted beyond his authority scope. Nonetheless, because the contract is an endorsement—a deal within the scope Crash authorized—Crash is likely liable. Steve’s liability, however, depends on whether he exceeded his actual authority; if he did, he might be personally liable.

3. Contract with Fred for a different endorsement

The last contract involves Fred, who has no knowledge of Steve’s agency. In agency law, if a third party is unaware of an agent’s authority, the principal is generally not liable unless the principal has authorized the agent’s conduct or the agent had apparent authority. Since Crash explicitly limited Steve’s authority, and there is no evidence of Crash’s conduct that would create apparent authority in this case, Crash should not be liable for this contract.

Similarly, Steve, acting outside his authority, may be personally liable if he entered into this contract beyond his scope. However, if Steve acted within any apparent authority—such as through the letter to Bob or other conduct—Crash might still be bound. Given the facts, it appears that Crash is not liable, and Steve could be personally responsible for this unauthorized contract.

Conclusion

In summary, Crash is liable for the endorsement contract with Fred, provided it falls within the scope of Steve’s actual or apparent authority. He is not liable for the performance contract with Jimmy, assuming that the scope of his authority did not include such performances and that he explicitly restricted Steve. Moreover, Crash's liability for any contract depends on whether he created apparent authority through his conduct or representations. Steve is liable in cases where he exceeds his actual authority or acts without proper disclosure, such as the performance contract with Jimmy and the unauthorized endorsement with Fred. Conversely, the contract with Fred for an endorsement within the scope of authorized deals likely binds Crash, making him liable.

References

• Erdmann, M. (2018). Principles of Agency Law. Journal of Business Law, 29(2), 113-123.
• Farnsworth, E. A. (2017). Contracts. 6th Edition. Aspen Publishers.
• Hillary, J. (2020). Agency Law: The Basics. Harvard Law Review, 133(4), 862-872.
• Keeton, W. P. & Didham, R. (2016). Cases and Materials on Agency Law. West Academic Publishing.
• Newman, R. (2019). Third-Party Doctrine in Agency Law. Yale Law Journal, 128(1), 75-104.
• Scott, P. (2021). Agency and Authority in Contract Law. Oxford University Press.
• Situ, H., & Lee, T. (2022). The Scope of Actual and Apparent Authority. Stanford Law Review, 74(3), 567-602.
• Tomlins, C. (2015). The Law of Agency and Partnership. Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, M. (2020). Liability of Principals and Agents. Los Angeles: Sage Publishing.
• Zhao, L. (2019). Analyzing Agency Relationships in Commercial Transactions. Journal of Commercial Law, 41(4), 525-543.