Thus, implied authority includes only such powers directly connected with and essential to carrying out the duties expressly delegated to the agent. It is crucial to distinguish actual authority from apparent authority. Plaintiff has offered no circumstantial evidence tending to prove that WRC, as principal, granted implied authority to Priebe to accept service of process on its behalf. Plaintiff's reliance upon Priebe's statement to the process server that he was the executive director is misplaced. This misrepresentation, at most, only reaches the level of apparent authority to receive service.
Implied authority is inferred from a course of dealing between the principal and the agent.
Therefore it is not enough to point to Priebe's self-identification as executive director to the process server. The court of appeals reasoned that finding service to be ineffective under the facts of this case would result in placing an additional requirement for service upon a corporation because a process server would no longer be able to rely upon an employee's statement that he is an executive director. However, this court has always placed the burden of reasonableness and diligence upon any person dealing with an agent to examine whether that agent has the authority to complete the proposed act. Truck Crane Serv. Further, the court of appeals decision expressed concern that dismissing this particular action where the process server relied on Priebe's statement that he was executive director would be unfair.