jump to navigation


This page is for discussion of issues relating to agency.

August 30, 2007:
In class today we considered agency by estoppel. The issue was raised about the difference between the conclusion of a contract to buy the furniture and the transfer of money which occurred in Hoddeson v Koos. The Second Restatement in s 8B states that a change in position means “payment of money, expenditure of labor, suffering a loss or subjection to legal liability”. The Third Restatement addresses agency by estoppel in s 2.05, but this provision does not define what constitutes a detrimental change in position.

Comment: cstruluck Sept 14: Hoddeson v. Koos provides that the deriliction of a proprietor’s duty is complete were damages stem from a transaction of the proprietor’s “business with a patron in the establishment.” If there is some confusion as to the type of detrimental change a business person must engage, I would argue that the mere conducting of business, where “measurable” in terms of damage and time, should suffice as a detriment. Negotiation, even discussion, should qualify as the conducting of business.
For example, a business person who typically makes $1,000.00 dollars an hour establishing relationships and contracts would argue that the time wasted in discussion is such a detrimental change. The proprietor who was liable in Koos would have to account for the business person’s lost hourly income because of his dereliction in the management of the store.
The business person would merely have to establish that time is worth that much to him or her. An hourly average of income would be convincing. This, of course, would extend the examples provided in the Second Restatement but fall within “detrimental change” as provided in the Third. This would also not preclude the business person from electing another measure of damages such as those provided in the Second Restatement; expended labor or payment of money. The labor in this case could arguably be his/her own.