Equipment Rental Services, Inc. v. Campesi
| Decision Date | 17 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 11552,11552 |
| Citation | 351 So.2d 1298 |
| Parties | EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES, INC. v. Ross CAMPESI d/b/a M. E. I. Enterprises. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
J. D. DeBlieux, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-appellant.
Curtis K. Stafford, Jr. of Pierson & Stafford, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.
Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.
This is an action to recover costs of repair, lost rental, attorney's fees, and interest under the provisions of a rental agreement. The court allowed recovery of some of the repair costs and some lost rental only. Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the trial judge's determination that there was no written contract. Defendant-lessee has answered this appeal seeking a complete reversal.
Defendant's employee, Layfield, opened negotiation for the rental of a dozer. Cook, defendant's superintendent, completed negotiations and told plaintiff to deliver the dozer after agreeing to the rental rate, the minimum lease period and the condition that the dozer be used only for dirt work. Cook authorized Layfield to receive delivery. Plaintiff, however, had a written rental agreement presented to Layfield, who signed it. This document contained provisions that the lessee would be responsible for repairs, lost rental time, attorney's fees and interest at the rate of 1% per month. When the dozer was returned its hydraulic system was inoperative, its blade cracked and gouged, its front idler arm broken and its rear fuel tank in need of repair.
Plaintiff claims the cost of repairs, $2,615.42; one month's rental, $3,400.00; attorney's fees at 25% and interest at 8%. The court allowed $1,790.00 for repairs, $1,125.00 for 3 days rental at the $375.00 daily rental rate and interest at 7% from date of judicial demand.
The issues presented are: (1) Was there a written contract of lease. (2) Did damage beyond the normal wear and tear occur during the lessee's possession.
We amend and affirm.
There is in the record the written agreement signed by Layfield. Defendant denies that he had authority to sign the agreement; defendant's manager denies even discussing such authorization with either Layfield or plaintiff. There is some testimony by the employee that he was given authority to sign the "contract". Admittedly, he was authorized to accept the machine, but there is some evidence to support the trial judge's finding of no express grant of authority to sign the rental agreement.
Plaintiff urges alternatively that Layfield had implied authority. In Pailet v. Guillory, La.App., 315 So.2d 893 (3rd Cir., 1975) the Court discussed implied agency as follows:
" * * * Like an express agency, an implied agency is an actual agency."
Thus, to prove an implied agency between Manufacturers Enterprises, Inc. and its employee, Mr. Layfield, plaintiff must show circumstances between the alleged principal and agent, beyond the normal employment relationship. The trial court evidently found that Layfield had no grant of authority beyond receiving and signing for the machine. It is difficult to interpret that grant as encompassing the implied authority to sign a rental agreement containing provisions unknown to both Layfield and Cook. We reject that contention.
The plaintiff next contends that Layfield had apparent authority. The issue presented here is not one of apparent authority, but one of credibility. The testimony dealing with this issue is completely contradictory. The plaintiff claims the defendant told him to get Layfield to sign the written contract. The defendant testifies of a policy against signing such contracts; Cook states emphatically that he did not say or do anything that could lead plaintiff to believe that Mr. Layfield could sign anything other than the normal receipt. The trial court accepted defendant's version. Since there are facts to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Houston Exploration v. Halliburton Energy, 02-30978.
...affairs to which [the defendant] was devoted.") (citation and quotations omitted). THEC erroneously relies on Equipment Rental Svcs., Inc. v. Campesi, 351 So.2d 1298, 1299 (1977), to support its position that Hileman's authority was specifically limited to permitting Halliburton to commence......