Opinion ID: 1172226
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The issue of One Call's duty to Manes was properly subject to summary adjudication.

Text: While the questions of what constitutes agency and whether evidence is competent to show it are questions of law, the evaluation of the evidence and the decision on whether an agency relationship exists is for the factfinder. Foster v. Cross, 650 P.2d 406, 408 (Alaska 1982) (agency relationship existed under contract); see also Sparks v. Republic Nat'l Life Ins., 132 Ariz. 529, 542, 647 P.2d 1127, 1140 (1982) (While it is true that the question of whether an agency existed is one of fact, when the material facts from which the agency relationship could be inferred are not in dispute, the question of whether an agency relationship exists is a question of law.). The facts which might give rise to an agency relationship are undisputed in this case. One Call advertised as a free reservation service. Manes contacted One Call with travel dates and requirements, and was told that One Call would find a place for her. Manes and One Call had no further contact. One Call reserved a room for Manes at the Always Inn. Several weeks later, Manes received a confirmation from the Always Inn, along with a request for a deposit, which Manes sent. On these undisputed facts, the issue properly is characterized as a dispute of the legal consequences of those facts. A court may rule on the existence and scope of an agency relationship which arises from undisputed facts. Thus, this issue was properly subject to summary adjudication.