Opinion ID: 1171158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability of John Blair.

Text: [1a] Defendant John Blair contends that he signed the contract as an agent only and is not personally liable thereunder. He relies on the rule that an agent who acts for a disclosed principal and is dealt with by the third party as an agent does not ordinarily incur personal liability. (See, 2 Cal.Jur.2d, Agency, § 132, and cases cited.) That rule is inapplicable here. [2] If the fact of agency appears in an integrated contract, and there is no unambiguous expression of an intention either to make or not to make the agent a party thereto, extrinsic evidence is admissible to show the intention of the parties. (Rest., Agency, § 323(2); Carlesimo v. Schwebel, 87 Cal. App.2d 482, 488 [197 P.2d 167]; Otis Elevator Co. v. Berry, 28 Cal. App.2d 430, 433 [82 P.2d 704]; cf. Patterson v. John P. Mills etc,. Inc., 203 Cal. 419, 421 [264 P. 759].) [3a] In the present case the word agent appears before John Blair's signature to the contract and there is a blank following the word owner. The reference to Louise Blair as the person who would receive the down payment as liquidated damages suggests that she is the principal. [1b] The words Gas & Pavement & Elec. to be put at no cost to buyer within 1 yr from above date also to be surveyed by Jno H. Blair at once indicate that the parties intended that John Blair should be personally liable for the surveying and also for installing the improvements. [3b] Thus, the contract gave plaintiffs notice that John Blair was an agent and indirectly disclosed the identity of the principal but it also contains language indicating that he was to be liable as a party to the contract. Since it cannot be definitely ascertained from the instrument whether John Blair signed solely as an agent or personally assumed the obligation to perform the contract, extrinsic evidence was admissible to determine the intention of the parties. ( Carlesimo v. Schwebel, supra, 87 Cal. App.2d 482, 487-489.) [4] Plaintiffs conducted all negotiations with John Blair at the tract office, marked with a sign Blair Hills Estates. John Blair stated that he would pave the road to Lot 7 and, in response to Mr. Coughlin's question regarding the time the utilities and pavement would be installed, stated probably by September everything would be in shape because he had invested $185,000 in bulldozing and he wanted to get started getting his money out of the tract so he was not going to lose any time in proceeding with the improvements in the tract. In the light of this evidence the trial court properly denied defendant John Blair's motion for a nonsuit. [5] Evidence later adduced [2] also supports the trial court's determination that it was the intention of the parties that John Blair be personally liable for performance of the contract. Eugene Blair, who was the brother of John Blair and who acted as the latter's agent and received a commission on the sale of the lot, testified, At the time of my deal with Mr. Coughlin it was no argument or discussion about the paving. Mr. Blair give them an agreement that he would pave it within a year.... Mr. Blair promised to put the gas and electricity in at a certain time, a certain time if he could do it.... Mr. Blair set it down in the form that I drew up and said in one year's time he thought he would have it all in.