Opinion ID: 1953412
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Acting Outside the Scope of Authority and Breaching the Terms of the Contract

Text: Third, the court found that Jenkins acted outside the scope of his authority and breached the terms of the oral contract by not obtaining an all-cash transaction that would yield at least $120,000. Indeed, Jenkins acted directly contrary to his obligation to provide the highest fidelity toward the principal. Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc., supra, 482 A.2d at 364-65. As discussed above, rather than follow the directions Benjamin gave him, Jenkins reduced the proceeds from the sale substantially below the $120,000 minimum that Benjamin had specified through the payments taken from those proceeds to pay Brooks' consumer accounts, property taxes, settlement costs and through the imposition of a mortgage on the Nash Street house. In the end, rather than the $120,000 Benjamin believed necessary for his brother's care, the proceeds were a mere $70,419.53, nearly $50,000 less than what he instructed Jenkins was the minimum acceptable amount. Jenkins appeared to have been motivated to do this not because there would be any benefit for the Strausses, nor because it was difficult to sell the house for a greater amount, [6] but rather because of a desire to realize two commissions, rather than one, from this double transaction. As the trial court wrote, It is a well-established legal principle that an agent who fails to exercise standard care and commits an act not authorized by his principal is liable for damages arising from that act. (citing Max Holtzman, Inc. v. K & T Co., 375 A.2d 510, 514 (D.C.1977)).