Question

Homeowners Jim and Lisa Criss hired Kevin Pappas, doing business as Outside Creations, to undertake a landscaping project. Kevin signed the parties' contract as "Kevin Pappas, Representative of Outside Creations." The Crisses made payments on the contract with checks payable to "Kevin Pappas," who deposited them in his personal account. Outside Creations did not have a bank account. Later, alleging breach of contract, the Crisses filed a suit in a state court against Kevin Pappas as an individual. Pappas defended that he could not be liable because the contract was not between the Criss family and him personally, but was between the Criss family and Outside Creations. He claimed that he was the agent of a company called Forever Green Landscaping and Irrigation, Inc., which had been operating under the name "Outside Creations" at the time of the contract and had since filed for bankruptcy. The name "Forever Green" was not in the contract. Should Pappas be liable on this contract?

Answer 1

Step-by-step explanation:

Case summary K and C were hired for landscaping project by J and L. They were working under the name of OC. The payment were made by check on the name of K. A suit was filed against K and C for the breach of contract.

Partially disclosed or disclosed principal in such type of cases, the principal is held liable for the contracts which are taken by the agents on behalf of or on the name of principle.

in this case, the payments made to K and C on behalf of OC were deposited in the personal account of K. The plaintiffs claim that K and C did not disclosed about the principal FGLI for which they were actually working for. Here, K and C disclosed that the principal FGLI is working under the name of OC. Going through the above-mentioned facts it can be concluded that if the plaintiff were already informed about the principal company for which the agents were working, then the principal would be held liable for the accusations but here, they were not even partly informed about the principal. Thus, in this case, K and C are held liable for the plaintiff's allegations.