Wing v. Lederer
222 N.E. 2d 535, 1966 Ill. App. LEXIS 1179, 77 Ill. App. 2d 413 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A principal is not liable for an agent's unauthorized actions if the agent lacked both actual and apparent authority. Furthermore, a principal cannot be held to have ratified an unauthorized act by retaining its benefits if the principal lacked full knowledge of the material facts and had no choice but to accept the benefits.
Facts:
- Mrs. Lederer asked Peter Sonza-Novera, a part-time caretaker, to find a tree surgeon for a specific maple tree and to have that person speak with her.
- Novera contacted Jacob A. Wing, a tree surgeon, and brought him to the Lederer property to see the tree.
- According to Wing, Novera instructed him to "go ahead and do what was necessary" for the trees and shrubbery on the property.
- Over several months, Wing performed various services, including spraying, pruning, and root feeding multiple trees, without ever speaking to or seeing the Lederers.
- Novera later mentioned to Mrs. Lederer that some work appeared to have been done on the maple tree.
- Several months after the work was completed, Wing sent Philip C. Lederer a bill for $500.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacob A. Wing (plaintiff) sued Philip C. Lederer and Peter Sonza-Novera (defendants) in a trial court to recover $500 for tree services.
- The trial court, sitting without a jury, entered judgment for Wing against Lederer in the amount of $250, and found in favor of defendant Novera.
- Lederer (defendant-appellant) appealed the judgment against him to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a principal liable for a contract entered into by his agent when the agent exceeded his actual authority, lacked apparent authority, and the principal did not ratify the contract because he had no knowledge of the work until after it was completed?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Davis
No, a principal is not liable under these circumstances. The court found no basis for contractual liability. Novera's actual authority was strictly limited to recommending a tree surgeon, not hiring one. There was no apparent authority because the principal, Lederer, did nothing to lead Wing to believe Novera had hiring power; a third party has a duty to ascertain the extent of an agent's authority. Finally, Lederer did not ratify the unauthorized hiring because ratification requires full knowledge of all material facts and a genuine choice to accept or reject the benefits. Since Lederer only learned of the work after it was done and could not undo it, his retention of the benefits was a matter of necessity, not a choice to ratify the agreement.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the strict requirements for establishing agency liability, particularly through apparent authority and ratification. It underscores that the burden is on the third party dealing with an agent to verify the scope of that agent's authority. The decision provides a crucial clarification on the doctrine of ratification, establishing that a principal's involuntary retention of benefits from an unauthorized act does not constitute ratification. This protects principals from being bound by unauthorized actions of which they had no knowledge and no opportunity to prevent or reject.
