Opinion ID: 2773045
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Michael and Teri Marquez

Text: ¶ 40 The Marquezes met with Mr. Campbell for the first time after his termination from HTK. The crux of their argument on appeal is that they met with Mr. Wheeler, as a registered HTK representative, and Mr. Wheeler referred them across the hall to Mr. Campbell. They contend that Mr. Wheeler‘s actions are sufficient to meet the element that ―the principal has manifested his [or her] consent to the exercise of such authority or has knowingly permitted the agent to assume the exercise of such authority.‖35 We disagree. A mere referral does not amount to a manifestation of authority to act in the name of a principal empowered to do so by apparent authority. In fact, a referral may very well imply the opposite in the context of authority—that the name or logo, access to a company car, or company stationery, by themselves, created sufficient indicia of apparent authority‖). 34 Kohn, 1993 WL 169191, at . 35 Luddington, 855 P.2d at 209 (alteration in original). 21 BURDICK v. HORNOR TOWNSEND Opinion of the Court scope of Mr. Wheeler‘s authority was less than or different from Mr. Campbell‘s such that a referral was required. Therefore, we affirm the district court‘s grant of summary judgment as to the Marquezes‘ claims based on apparent authority.