Law School Resources
Lee v. Jenkins Bros., (1959)
1. Lee v. Jenkins Bros., (1959);
pg. 381, briefed 2/24/97
2. Facts:
Lee sued Jenkins Bros. to recover pension payments
allegedly due under an oral contract made on behalf
of the corporation by the president.
3. Procedural Posture:
The lower court dismissed on the grounds that there
was insufficient evidence of the oral contract to
enforce it. The court of appeals affirmed, and went
on to discuss the following issue:
4. Issue:
Whether, as a matter of law, a president of a
corporation does not have the authority to
secure employment of badly needed personnel by
granting a ślife pension”.
5. Holding:
No.
6. Reasoning:
The actual authority (granted either implicitly or
explicitly by a corporation) of a corporate officer
is augmented by his apparent authority to third
persons. As a general rule, the president only has
the authority to bind the corporation by acts
arising from the usual and regular course of
business, but not for contracts of “extraordinary”
nature. It is generally settled that a president
may hire and fire employees, but it is a question of
fact as to whether the granting of a life
pension is so “extraordinary” as to defeat the
apparent authority of the president.
|