ZIV Television Programs, Inc. v. Associated Grocers, Inc., of S. C.
| Decision Date | 14 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 17669,17669 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ZIV TELEVISION PROGRAMS, INC. Respondent, v. ASSOCIATED GROCERS, INC., OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Appellant. |
Leatherwood, Walker, Todd & Mann, Greenville, for appellant.
H. F. Partee, Ashmore & Bowen, Greenvile, for respondent.
This appeal arises out of an alleged contract entered into for the purpose of advertising on certain television programs.
Plaintiff alleges that Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association agreed to pay the sum of $101.25 for each of 52 programs for a total of $5,265, that said contract was executed on behalf of Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association by Miss Jack Burford, the alleged advertising manager, and that such contract was signed while acting within the scope and course of her authority as such.
Defendant denies that it entered into the alleged agreement, states that Miss Burford was at no time its advertising manager, that if she signed or executed the said contract she was not acting within the scope and course of her authority, and further, that it had not received any film or other material as a result of the alleged contract.
Motions for nonsuit and directed verdict were duly made by defendant and refused. Plaintiff moved for a directed verdict upon the ground that the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the testimony was that Miss Jack Burford was the authorized agent of the defendant corporation and signed the contract under her actual or apparent authority. The trial Judge granted plaintiff's motion in the amount sued for; and defendant appeals, contending that the evidence does not establish as a matter of law that Miss Burford who allegedly signed the contract had authority to do so, actual or apparent.
Upon appeal, it is conceded that plaintiff's case must stand or fall upon Miss Burford's apparent authority rather than actual authority.
Approximately 70 or 80 retail grocery stores banded together as Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association, later changed to Associated Grocers, Inc., of South Carolina, for the purpose of buying in greater quantities and thereby being in position to sell more advantageously the various items sold in their retail stores. About 20 of the group formed an organization for the promotion of sales by advertising in the newspapers weekly bargains at their retail stores. This group was known as The Topper Stores and all belonged to Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association, but all of the Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association members did not belong to The Topper Stores.
The Topper Stores maintained its office at the warehouse of Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association where each week representatives of The Topper Stores met for the purpose of formulating their newspaper ads for that week. Miss Jack Burford, who was employed by Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association, assisted this group in the formulation of these ads and was paid additional compensation for such services.
On the date of the signing of the contract, a salesman for the plaintiff went to the warehouse of Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association, accompanied by a Mr. Glass, who was a sales manager for Television Station WFBC, Greenville, South Carolina. As a result of this meeting, Miss Jack Burford purportedly executed the contract in question for Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association for the rental of films for advertising purposes. It is conceded that plaintiff had had no previous dealings with Greenville Progressive Grocers' Cooperative Association.
One witness, Mr. Jack Gainey, Jr., the television advertising representative employed by plaintiff, testified by way of deposition: 'We talked to Mr. Smith who represented himself to be the manager of the firm and to Miss Jack Burford who was represented to be the advertising...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R & G CONST., INC. v. LRTA
...on the representation. See Graves v. Serbin Farms, Inc., 306 S.C. 60, 409 S.E.2d 769 (1991); ZIV Television Programs, Inc. v. Associated Grocers, Inc., 236 S.C. 448, 114 S.E.2d 826 (1960). In the principal and agent relationship, apparent authority is considered to be a power which a princi......
-
Watkins v. Mobil Oil Corp., 0838
...the representation and a change of position to his detriment in reliance on the representation. ZIV TV Programs v. Associated Grocers, Inc., of S.C., 236 S.C. 448, 114 S.E.2d 826 (1960); Fochtman v. Clanton's Auto Auction Sales, 233 S.C. 581, 106 S.E.2d 272 (1958); 2A C.J.S. Agency 160 at 7......
-
McCall v. Finley
...by the purported principal and a change of position as a result of such a reliance. ZIV Television Programs, Inc. v. Associated Grocers, Inc. of South Carolina, 236 S.C. 448, 114 S.E.2d 826 (1960). McCall could not have relied on any representation of agency by Brashier in agreeing to buy t......
-
Beasley v. Kerr-McGee Chemical Corp., Inc., KERR-M
...the principal and such reliance must have effected a change of position by the third party. ZIV Television Programs, Inc. v. Associated Grocers, Inc. of S. C., 236 S.C. 448, 114 S.E.2d 826 (1960). To respondent, Houser was Kerr-McGee's "agent" for farm supplies in his community. Beasley was......