Appellant undisclosed principal sought review of a decision from the Superior Court of Stanislaus County (California), which entered judgment for appellee agent in the agent’s action for indemnification. The principal contended the agent was precluded from recovery pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 2309.
California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. explains last paycheck California
Overview
An agent and undisclosed principal entered into an oral agreement whereby the agent would procure a buyer for the undisclosed principal’s food product. When the agent located a buyer and the undisclosed principal authorized the contract price, the agent entered into a contract with the buyer in the agent’s own name. The undisclosed principal refused to perform under the contract and the buyer brought an action for damages against the agent. A judgment was entered for the buyer and the agent satisfied the judgment. The agent then brought an action against the undisclosed principal for indemnification, and the trial court awarded judgment to the agent. The undisclosed principal appealed, contending that § 2309 precluded recovery by the agent because the amount of the contract with the buyer was in excess of $ 500, and the agency agreement was thus required to be in writing. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that the statute applied to the third party contract with the buyer but did not affect the oral agreement between the agent and undisclosed principal, which remained valid pursuant to the provisions of the statute.
Outcome
The court affirmed the judgment entered in favor of the agent.
