Authority to Sign: Actual & Apparent
James D. Fullerton
Fullerton & Knowles, P.C.
Recently, clients have asked questions about what titles
to accept for signatures on contracts for limited liability entities, such
as a Corporation or LLC (each herein referred to as the
"Company"). Should you only accept the signature and title
of "Managing Member" for an LLC? Should you automatically
accept the signature of the "President" of a corporation?
What is the power of a Member, Managing Member, President, Vice President,
or CEOfor an LLC or a corporation? We all
want to avoid any legal or financial issue(s) that may arise if a contract
is not completed and signed correctly or is not binding on the Company with
which we think we are doing business.
Any "authorized agent" can bind a corporation
or a limited liability company. In other words, the Company
could "authorize" any person to sign a contract for the
Company and the contract would be binding. The real issue is whether
you can be confident that the Company has made that signing person an
"authorized agent." For that reason, a bank providing a mortgage
loan would typically want a "resolution" signed by all the
members or shareholders of the Company, stating that a particular person is
authorized to sign the mortgage documents for the Company.
You can consider requiring such a resolution. The operating
agreement for a limited liability company or the bylaws of a corporation
are the governing documents of these limited liability entities. A
partnership agreement has the same role in a partnership, although
partnerships are less common than they used to be. These governing
documents typically state what titled officers are authorized for
certain decisions. A bank would want to see those governing
The president usually has general authority to bind the
corporation and the manager usually has general authority to bind the LLC,
but you cannot be positive without seeing the bylaws and/or a resolution
for the corporation.[i]
An analogy to the United States federal government is helpful. The
President of the United States has the greatest authority of any single
person in government. But even the President might take action that
is "unconstitutional" and therefore not binding. You would
have to review the constitution and the perhaps prior acts of Congress to
know for sure. Even then, there is room for argument and
uncertainty. You may need a decision of the Supreme Court. The
operating agreement or bylaws are comparable to the constitution.
Resolutions are comparable to acts of Congress. In the event of
a dispute, you may need a decision by a court to interpret the operating
agreement or bylaws of a limited liability entity.
Though a president or manager of a Company usually has
the general authority to bind their corporation, their power has its limits.
For example, the general authority to conduct a business does not include
authority to sell the primary assets of the Company necessary for the
operation of the business.[ii] The
inherent or apparent authority of a corporate president is limited to acts
within the ordinary course of its business and does not extend to
extraordinary and unusual transactions.[iii]
If you are doing business with a limited liability entity, you must use
some common sense about the ordinary course of a business and the realistic
authority of the agents with whom you are dealing.
The concept of "apparent authority" is also
important.[iv] If you deal with
someone that has the "apparent authority" to bind the Company,
then the Company is bound, whether the agent had "actual
authority" or not.[v] General
employment in a specific capacity, such as factor, broker, or attorney, may
bind the Company by all acts within the scope of that employment.
That power cannot be limited by any private order or direction not known to
the party dealing with the agent. The Company would be responsible if the
agent is acting within the scope of their usual employment. The
Company would also be responsible if the agent is held out to the public,
or to the other party, as having authority, even if the agent has in fact
exceeded their instructions and acted without authority.[vi]
The crucial factor is reasonable reliance. The Company is responsible for
the agent's actions when the affirmative acts of the Company orthe failure to take corrective steps, has clothed the
agentwith apparent authority and induces a third
party to rely on that authority to their detriment.[vii]
It is up to the Company to make sure others do not have the impression that
its agents have authority beyond what they actually have.[viii]
Certain titled agents are generally accepted as
authorized. Historically the strongest title for a limited liability
company was manager or managing member. The manager is usually
an "authorized agent" for an LLC, even if they are not a member.
Similarly, a president usually has the broadest single power to bind a
corporation. You would have to see the operating agreement or a resolution
to know for sure. Even a member may not be authorized to bind the
Company, just like one shareholder of General Motors is not authorized to
bind General Motors. You would have to see the operating agreement or a
resolution to know for sure. In recent years, it has become more
common for limited liability company managers to take titles that used to
be only for corporations, such as "president" or "vice
president." These titles do indicate some broad power to bind
When considering which signatures to accept, it is
important to be cautious. Although titles can be a reliable indicator of an
individual's authority, you must still do your due diligence and verify a
potential signatory's authority to sign or bind their Company to an
agreement. Courts are not sympathetic to individuals who decide to transact
with an agent without further inquiring into whether that person has the
actual authority to do so.[ix] You should also
remember to inquire as to the actual authority of a purported agent.
Most business people accept the signature of the
president, even though the president may not have the actually authority to
bind the Company on any particular issue. The law of "apparent
authority" explains why a trade creditor is usually satisfied with a
signature from the manager or managing member or president and
explains why most people would probably accept just "member" or
just "vice president." But you cannot be certain without
seeing the operating agreement or bylaws and a resolution.
The most difficult decisions for business people will
usually be with marginal titles. For example, whether the vice president is
authorized to bind the corporation or a member is authorized to bind an
LLC. The only certain answer is to see the operating agreement of the
Company and require all members or shareholders to sign a resolution authorizing
the signing person to bind the Company.
Join our mailing list at: http://www.fullertonlaw.com/mail-list.html
Readers are welcome to reprint or republish this article
with the following attribution:
© (2020) James D. Fullerton, Fullerton & Knowles,
P.C. Clifton, VA (703) 818-2600
Use the Free Construction Law Survival Manual at www.FullertonLaw.com
James D. Fullerton
Fullerton & Knowles, P.C.
12642 Chapel Rd.
Clifton, VA 20124
(703) 818-2600, Ext. # 205
2020 Construction Law Seminars
start March 10, 2020.
For More information go Here http://www.fullertonlaw.com/seminars
The Construction Law Survival Seminar has always
been designed for suppliers, subcontractors, general contractors design
professionals, and all other members of the construction industry.
- Mechanic's Lien and Payment Bond rights
- Contract Terms to put in your Proposals
- Reviewing and Revising Contracts you receive
Construction Law Survival Seminar Rockydale Quarries Corporation - Roanoke, VA
March 10th 2020
Construction Law Survival Seminar Independent
Electrical Contractors - Laurel, MD
April 27th 2020 8:30am -3:30pm
Construction Law Survival Seminar Associated Builders
& Contractors - Dulles, VA
November 4th 2020 8:30am -3:30pm
The Just for GCs Construction Law Seminar will
cover many similar topics. All members of the construction industry are
invited and will benefit, but we will consider matters from a general
contractor's point of view.
- AIA General Contract terms & Writing, Reviewing
and Revising General Contracts
- Conduit, Change Orders&Claims,
Defects in Plans and Specs
- Differing or Concealed Conditions, No Damage for Delay
& Liquidated Damages
- Administering Subcontracts and Sub claims, Preconditions
for Payments to Subs
- Subcontractor Performance&Payment
- Progress Payment Lien Waivers, and Joint Check
Just for GCs Construction Law Seminar Associated
Builders & Contractors - Dulles, VA
May 6th 2020 8:30am -3:30pm
Just for GCs Construction Law Seminar Independent
Electrical Contractors - Laurel, MD
October 29th 2020 8:30am -3:30pm
Each seminar participant will receive continental
breakfast, lunch, refreshments and the newest edition of the 700 page Construction Law Survival Manual. Cost of $89
Seminar starts at 8:30 am. Check-in starts at 8:00 am.
Mosell Realty Corp. v. Schofield, 183 Va.
782, 790, 33 S.E.2d 774, 777 (1945)[The inherent or implied authority of a
corporate president is limited to acts within the ordinary course of its
business and does not extend to extraordinary and unusual transactions such
as the sale and purchase of real estate that is the major or only asset of
the Company.] Authors note: This is an interesting, but
questionable, decision based on the facts of this case. The Supreme Court
opinion had not one, but two different dissenting opinions.
Realty Corp. v. Schofield, 183 Va. 782, 791, 33 S.E.2d 774, 778 (1945)[Thus, if the premises upon which a business is
conducted is owned by the principal, it is inferred that a manager of the
business has no authority to sell that property].
Realty Corp. v. Schofield, 183 Va. 782, 790, 33 S.E.2d 774, 777 (1945),
citing Sterling v. Tr. Co. of Norfolk, 149 Va. 867, 141 S.E. 856
(1928)[The secretary and treasurer of a corporation engaged in the
automobile and garage business did not have the authority to bind the
corporation for the purchase of an expensive piece of real estate for the
purpose of enlarging its business, even though such officer held
approximately fifty per cent of the capital stock of the corporation, was
one of its three stockholders, and one of its four directors. That
authority is lodged in the Board of Directors.] It is often advisable to
get all shareholders, the president and the board of directors to sign a resolution
for an extraordinary transaction by a corporation.
[iv] Progressive Cas. Ins.
Co. v. Ehrhardt, 69 Md. App. 431, 440, 518 A.2d 151, 155 (1986), citing3 Am.Jur.2d Agency § 71, at 575 (1986)[An agent's authority to act
must come from the principal (Company). It is well established that
the authority conferred upon the agent by the principal can take two forms:
actual authority or apparent authority. Actual authority is that which is
actually granted, and it may be express or implied. Apparent, also
called ostensible authority, is not actually granted. However, the
principal (Company) knowingly permits the agent to exercise or which
himself holds out as possessing (footnotes omitted)].
[v] The extent of the apparent
authority is limited to "that authority which the principal has held
the agent out as possessing, or which he has permitted the agent to
represent that he possesses." To the extent the principal has so
cloaked the agent, he "is estopped to deny that the agent possessed
the authority which he exercised." Wright v. Shortridge, 194 Va. 346, 73 S.E.2d 360, 364
(1952); see also Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Ehrhardt,
69 Md. App. 431, 440-441, 518 A.2d 151, 155 (1986). However, anytime
a third party deals with an agent without further
inquiring as to the actual authority, they do so at their own peril. If no
agency relationship exists or the agent's authority is exceeded, the sole
recourse of a third party is against the agent. The principal is not
bound. See Kern v. J. L. Barksdale Furniture Corp., 224 Va. 682,
685, 299 S.E.2d 365 (1983); See also Scotsman v. Crawford,
53 Va. Cir. 183 (Cir. Ct. 2000).
v. Levy, 122 Md. 554, 559, 90 A. 102, 104 (1914), citing Lister v.
Allen, 31 Md. 543 (1869).
[vii] Progressive Cas. Ins.
Co. v. Ehrhardt, 69 Md. App. 431, 441, 518 A.2d 151, 156 (1986).
[viii] For example, the Company
could not allow an agent to continually agree to transactions, perform
those agreements, then later deny the Company is bound to a subsequent
agreement. The Company is probably "estopped" from denying
in a later transaction that the agent had authority to bind the
Company. See Southern Amusement Co. 125 Va. 429, 99 S.E.
716 (1919)[The Company continually allowed
the manager of one of its theaters to purchase furnishings and other large
purchases on its behalf. The Company consistently paid the bills for all
purchases the manager made. These facts were well known to plaintiff who
held an open account for the theater. The manager made extensive purchases
from the plaintiff for the purpose of renovating the theater,
and the theater company subsequently refused to pay the bill. In that case,
the court held the theater liable under the theory of apparent authority
because the theater cloaked the manager in the robe of apparent authority
and made no limitation as to the extent of his authority known to the
plaintiff or the public in general.] It is also an important factor whether
the Company kept the benefits of the transaction it later wants to deny.
The Company also should not receive the benefit of the furnishings without
paying compensation. Court state that if the Company accepts the benefits,
"it must assume its burdens." Where the Company retains the
benefits of a contract made by his agent without authority this may act as
ratification of the contract. See Southern Amusement Co. 125 Va. 429, 99 S.E.
716 (1919), citing Planters Bank v. Loe, 193
Va. 411, 69 S.E.2d 455 (1952); and also seeKern, 224 Va. at 685,
quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 99 (1958); see
also Scotsman v. Crawford, 53 Va. Cir. 183 (Cir. Ct. 2000).
[ix] See Kern v. J. L. Barksdale Furniture Corp., 224 Va. 682,
685, 299 S.E.2d 365 (1983)[Anytime a third party deals with
an agent without further inquiring as to the actual authority, they do so
at their own peril. If no agency relationship exists or the agent's
authority is exceeded, the sole recourse of a third party is against the
agent. The principal is not bound].