Court Opinion

ID: 9657068
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:12:14.417549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:40.424156
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, J.
(dissenting). I dissent because I conclude that this case cannot be decided as a matter of law on summary judgment.
The applicable rule of law is that in the absence of a manifestation to the contrary, there is an inference that an agent as well as the partially disclosed principal are parties to a contract. Restatement (Second) of Agency, secs. 4(2), 147, 321 (1958). "It is sometimes stated that if an agent discloses the fact that he is an agent, but not the name of his principal, he is personally liable. This, however, is not literally true. It is possible by language clearly indicating that the agent intends to assume no liability, and that all rights and liabilities are to be those of an unnamed principal, to produce the desired result."*
Whether Benjamin Plumbing, Inc., had sufficient notice of the principal's corporate identity and whether it intended to contract only with the partially disclosed principal, not the individual agent, are questions of fact to be determined at trial.
In this case no single written document constituting the contract was signed. Defendant Whitcomb met with a representative of Benjamin Plumbing and wrote to *861Benjamin Plumbing on business stationery, signing as a representative of Response to Hunger Network. Benjamin Plumbing's written estimate was addressed to Response to Hunger Network and more specifically to "To Whom it May Concern." Benjamin Plumbing's Application and Certificate for Payment was addressed to Response to Hunger Network. Mr. Whitcomb's name does not appear on any documents Benjamin Plumbing sent to Response to Hunger Network.
The documents filed with the motion for summary judgment show that Benjamin Plumbing knew an entity was involved and addressed all its communications apparently constituting the contract to the entity, not to the individual defendants named in this action.
The affidavit filed on behalf of Benjamin Plumbing asserts that the defendants individually contracted with Benjamin Plumbing and that Response to Hunger Network was not a party "to the contractual undertakings named in the plaintiffs complaint." Whitcomb's affidavit asserts that he "contacted and corresponded with Benjamin Plumbing solely on behalf of Response to Hunger Network, Inc." The parties dispute facts and the reasonable inferences from undisputed facts. I conclude that under these circumstances summary judgment is inappropriate. A trial is necessary.
For the reasons set forth, I dissent.

2 Williston, Contracts, sec. 285. p. 335-336 (3d ed. Jaeger ed. 1959). See also Comment, sec. 321, Restatement (Second) of Agency, p. 70 (1959).