Bailey, an owner-operator truck driver working as an independent contractor, was transporting goods for Norco when his truck was stolen. It was found in a lake with its diesel fuel contaminating the water. Bailey called the Norco dispatcher to alert her, and Protect Environmental Services later arrived on the scene with a contract to perform cleanup services. Bailey was told that the contract needed to be signed before cleanup could begin, and he testified that the Protect representative told him that the contract was between Protect and Norco. The Protect representative asked Bailey if he was "Mr. Norco," and when Bailey said "no," Protect testified that he told Bailey to contact Norco and "obtain approval" before cleanup started. Protect then said that Bailey made a phone call, and when the call ended, Bailey said that he had received authorization to sign the contract. Bailey signed the contract believing he had authority to do so. Protect mailed and faxed a copy of the signed contract and the invoice to Norco. Norco never responded, nor did it pay the invoice. Norco never "asserted Bailey's lack of authority as the basis for non-payment," nor did Norco ever dispute the bill or contract. Protect sued Norco for payment three months later. What elements are required for finding of apparent authority? Do you think Protect had a reasonable basis to believe that Bailey had authority to sign the contract on Norco's behalf? How do you think the court treated Norco's silence? Would Norco's failure to dispute the contract and the invoice be considered a "manifestation of acceptance"?
Protect Environmental Services, Inc. v. Norco Corp., 403 S.W.3d 532 (Tex. App. 2013).