University:
University of Mississippi
Course:
BUS 271 | Business Communication
Academic year:

2020
Views:

220

Pages:

2
Author:

Amira Hester

BOTTICELLO v. STEFANOVICZ 177 Conn. 22, 411 A.2d 16 (1979) FACTS: Parties: Appellant: Mary and Walter Stefanovicz (Δ) Appellee: Botticello (Π) Procedural History: Trial court found in favor of Π Δ appealed Relevant Facts: 1943 Δ acquired a farm as TIC Π was interested in the farm Δs’ asking price was $100,000 Π offered $75,000 Parties settled on $85,000 for a lease with an option to purchase, Δ stated she would not sell the property for less than that amount No one, including parties attorneys, was aware that Walter did not own the farm outright Π did not request a title search Δ did not represent that he was acting as an agent on behalf of his wife 1968 3rd party sought an easement over the land and Mary’s interest became known Π made substantial improvements after taking over the property 1971 Π exercised option to purchase Δs refused to honor the option ISSUE: Whether Walter was an agent authorized to act on Mary’s behalf PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff: Mary acquiesced to Π and acted as if there was a contract Defendant: DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: Reversed RULE OF LAW: Agency Elements o A manifestation by the principal that the agent will act for him o Acceptance by the agent of the undertaking o An understanding between the parties that the principal will be in control of the undertaking Ratification – the affirmance by a person of a prior act which did not bind him but which was done or professedly done on his account o Requires acceptance of the results of the act with an intent to ratify, and with full knowledge of all the material circumstances HOLDING: Mary was not bound as a principal by Walter’s actions because Walter was not an authorized agent of Mary COURT’S REASONING: Marital status is not proof of an agency relationship Joint ownership of land is not proof of an agency relationship A statement indicating a minimum purchase price is not authorization to sell for that price Just because one spouse does more of the business transactions, absent an agreement or authorization, does not delegate the power of an agent Walter had never signed any documents as agent for Mary Mary never intended to ratify the agreement Mary did not have knowledge of all the material circumstances surrounding the deal Mary knew she had an interest in the property and received rent from time to time Walter had the right to lease his ½ undivided interest in the property Mary must have had the intent to ratify in order for her acceptance of payment to be considered acquiescence