Opinion ID: 883667
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Standing for Breach of Contract Claims

Text: Appellants argue that each Appellant established an individual contract with Respondents and therefore, each is entitled to recover damages for breach of contract. We disagree. Appellants contend that Maria acted as an agent for the other Appellants when she contracted with each Respondent. Montana statute defines agency by the following relevant statutes: XX-XX-XXX. Definitions of agent and agency. An agent is one who represents another, called the principal, in dealings with third persons. Such representation is called agency. .... XX-XX-XXX. Actual versus ostensible agency. An agency is either actual or ostensible. An agency is actual when the agent is really employed by the principal. An agency is ostensible when the principal intentionally or by want of ordinary care causes a third person to believe another to be his agent who is not really employed by him. .... XX-XX-XXX. How agency may be created. An agency may be created and an authority may be conferred by a precedent authorization or a subsequent ratification. By the nature of their claims, Appellants assert that Maria represented the other family members (principals) in dealing with the Respondents (third persons). Appellants do not allege an actual agency or a subsequent ratification. Where the undisputed evidence concerning the status of the parties defendant to each other is reasonably susceptible of but a single inference, the question of their legal relationship ... is one purely of law. Estates of Milliron v. Francke (1990), 243 Mont. 200, 204, 793 P.2d 824, 827. Appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to give rise to a genuine issue of material fact regarding an agency relationship between Maria and the other Appellants. See Estates of Milliron, 793 P.2d at 827. Appellants cite evidence in the record that both Respondents were aware that the Appellants had pooled their funds to pay for the funeral. Respondents do not contest Appellants' assertion that each Appellant contributed to the costs of funeral expenses. These facts, however, are not sufficient to establish an agency relationship. Because only Maria established a contract with Respondents, we hold that only Maria may maintain a claim for breach of contract.