Opinion ID: 2576177
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Cummins's manifestations to Nelson

Text: A manifestation may be in the form of written or spoken words or any other conduct . . . . [16] The manifestation may be directly communicated to the third party or may come through signs, advertising, authorization of an agent to claim that he is authorized, or continuous employment of the agent. [17] Nelson testified that, after his wife gave him the phone number from an advertisement, he called Cummins Northwest in Anchorage, explained which engine he wanted to purchase, and asked if they could help him out. [18] According to Nelson, Cummins Northwest's employee responded: Yeah, I sure can help you out. . . . Petersburg's where you want to go and we can fix you up there. Nelson testified that the Cummins Northwest employee gave him P & R's phone number and told him that P & R could put in the engine there for [him] and take care of [him] and get [him] back on the road. Nelson then called P & R and negotiated the repower with Mike Luhr. There was no evidence that Nelson had further contact with Cummins, Inc. or Cummins Northwest until after the repower was complete. Cummins correctly argues that in this case our review of the evidence should focus on Cummins's manifestations that Nelson was aware of. In a case in which there was no communication between the principal and the third party, we overturned a finding of apparent authority. [19] But in this case, Nelson testified that he spoke with an employee of Cummins Northwest and that the employee referred him to P & R, telling him that we can fix you up there. The evidence of Cummins's manifestations to Nelson was sufficient to present a jury question concerning this element of the Nelson's apparent authority claim. [20]