Flashcards Studio

In a manufacturing plant, Plant Supervisor Ms. Garcia signs a written Memorandum of Temporary Transportation Allowance (MTTA) with the workers’ union representative, Mr. Santos, who claims authority to negotiate a temporary transportation allowance for the plant’s workers. The MTTA states that the company will increase the monthly transportation allowance by 25% for the next four months and that the memorandum binds the company. The company later refuses to implement the increase, arguing that Garcia had no actual authority and that Santos had no express authority. The union contends that Garcia had apparent authority by virtue of her position and the plant’s longstanding practice of allowing signings by plant supervisors. (a) Identify the controlling doctrine applicable to the facts and determine whether Garcia had actual authority, apparent authority, or neither. (b) If there is no actual authority, discuss whether the company can be bound by apparent authority or agency by estoppel, and what evidence would be required to prove either. (c) If the company refuses to honor the memorandum, what remedy could the workers pursue under Civil Code principles to enforce the agreement or recover losses? Focus on contract remedies.