3079 A party to a transaction who is aware that its ultimate goal is to benefit the individuals involved in the transaction through use of a priniciple's name and to confer no benefit on the principle is disqualified from relying on ostensible authority of the purported agent; an employer is not vicariously liable for acts of an employee with whom plaintiff is conspiring to use the employer to obtain a benefit for himself.CitationSAKS v CHARITY MISSION BAPTIST CHURCH (Reverend's Fraud) 90 CA4 1116 [See: CivC 2317, 2334; Meyer v Glenmoor 246 CA2 242; Lisa M v Henry Mayo 12 C4 291, T/AT 1/96]
|
|