Zullo v. Alcoatings, Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-3160,5-3160 |
| Citation | 237 Ark. 511,374 S.W.2d 188 |
| Parties | Frank ZULLO, Appellant, v. ALCOATINGS, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Earl J. Mazander and B. W. Thomas, Hot Springs, for appellant.
R. Scott Campbell, Hot Springs, for appellee.
This is an action by the appellee to collect $580.95 on an open account for roofing materials. In appellant's answer he admitted the purchases and by cross complaint sought $2,025.00 in damages as the 'proximate result of the material not being as represented and guaranteed * * *,' by the appellee. The court, sitting as a jury, found the issues in favor of the appellee. The appellant, on appeal, relies upon two points for reversal. We combine them for discussion on sufficiency of evidence since both points, in effect, contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings of the court as trier of the facts.
Appellant ordered and purchased roofing materials from appellee through a Maurice Bowman who was appellant's tenant. Appellant testified that, upon Bowman's recommendation, he employed and paid a certain individual to apply the roofing materials and that Bowman supervised the application. Within a short period of time after the application of the product on the roof, leaking occurred which damaged the interior and furnishings of appellant's apartment building. Additional roofing material was ordered and applied to no avail and within a few months it became necessary to install a 'complete new roof'. Appellant contends Mr. Bowman told him he was appellee's agent and that he relied on Bowman's unconditional representation and guarantee that the roofing material would keep his roof from leaking for ten years and, therefore, appellee is bound by its agent's representations. The law is well settled that neither an agency nor the scope of an agency can be established by the declarations or actions of a purported agent. Smith v. Pleasant, 200 Ark. 1190, 139 S.W.2d 377; Wright v. Harris, 222 Ark. 661, 262 S.W.2d 142.
Further, it is a well established rule of law as to principal and agent that the nature and extent of an agent's authority, when the evidence is in conflict, is a question of fact for the jury. Bradley Advertising, Inc., v. Froug Stores, Inc., 193 Ark. 639, 101 S.W.2d 789. The appellee denied Bowman was its agent. Appellee adduced evidence that Bowman, as its salesman, was only authorized to make such guarantees as were conditionally expressed on its brochures, invoices, and in the printed instructions furnished with the product.
The invoice received by appellant reads inter alia:
'No representations, agreements or promise of the salesman (not shown on this invoice) whether verbal or in writing, shall be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schmoll v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co.
...of the party to be affected. Dixie Ins. Co. v. Joe Works Chevrolet, Inc., 298 Ark. 106, 766 S.W.2d 4 (1989); Zullo v. Alcoatings, Inc., 237 Ark. 511, 374 S.W.2d 188 (1964). The burden of proving an agency relationship lies with the party asserting its existence. Newberry v. Scruggs, 336 Ark......
-
Hawthorne v. Davis
...extent of an agent's authority can be shown by his own declarations in the absence of the party to be effected. Zullo v. Alcoating, Inc., 237 Ark. 511, 374 S.W.2d 188 (1964). It is well settled, however, that the existence of the agency relationship may be established by the testimony of ot......
-
Hawthorne v. Davis
...of an agent cannot be shown by his own declarations in the absence of the party to be affected by them, citing Zullo v. Alcoatings, Inc., 237 Ark. 511, 374 S.W.2d 188 (1964). That was not a workers' compensation case. Further, it is a well established rule of law as to principal and agent t......
-
E. E. Terry, Inc. v. Cities of Helena and West Helena
...to this court we are only concerned with whether or not there was any substantial evidence to support the judgment. Zullo v. Alcoatings, Inc., 237 Ark. 511, 374 S.W.2d 188. It is clear that the 1966 lease agreement in the case at bar made no mention of the lessor's duty to make repairs. It ......