Please help with number two

1. A.D. Moore was the president of Sanger Lumber Company. He was also the president and a large shareholder of Moore & Smith Lumber Company. Moore signed a promissory note for Sanger Lumber Company in the amount of $2,000 payable to Moore & Smith Lumber Company. The note was given for consideration and entered on the Sanger books. When the note became due, Sarah Phillips was the holder of it and presented it for payment to Sanger. Sanger objected that Moore had no authority to sign promissory notes and refused to pay. Phillips sued Sanger. Who wins and why? 2. Frank Dahl contacted Richard Black and retained his services as a real estate agent for broker Sue Mallot of Sunshine Realty to help him sell his lease rights in Illiamna Lana Lodge. Dahl was in default on his rent payment, and if unable to sell the lease, he would lose it all. Black would get a 10% commission if he located a buyer. Black located a potential buyer and assured Dahl, right up to Dahl's lease deadline, that the buyer intended to purchase his lease. However, the buyer was not prepared to purchase since the request for inspection of the financial records and the premises had not been forwarded to Dahl by Black. Black told the buyer if the purchase was delayed 10-15 days, the purchase could be made for $10,000 less than the $50,000 Dahl wanted. The deadline passed, and Dahl lost the lease. Black told Dahl he thought the buyer wasn't interested anymore. The buyer subsequently purchased the lease for $40,000 with Black receiving a commission. Dahl sued Black for failing to keep him informed. Is Black liable? 3. Curtis Troxell worked for H&H Appliances in Merced, and as part of his regular duties, ran errands for his employer. Troxell was directed to drop some mail at the post office on his way home from work. After delivering the mail, he headed for Atwater to have dinner at his parents. He retraced his route to the post office and proceeded beyond H&H Appliances a few blocks and struck John Felix. Felix sued H&H Appliances on respondeat superior for the negligent act of employee Troxell. Was Troxell acting within the scope of employment at the time of the accident