How To Prove A Florida Agency by Estoppel Claim

 

 

In Florida, a claim of Agency by Estoppel is defined as:

Agency by Estoppel, also known as apparent agency, occurs when a person or entity is considered an agent of another party based on the actions, representations, or conduct of the principal. This legal doctrine is designed to protect third parties who reasonably rely on the appearance of authority created by the principal’s actions or representations.

It simply means:

When one party’s actions create the appearance that they are an agent for another.

There are 3 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. The defendant represents, through words or actions, that an alleged agent has authority to act on his or her behalf. The defendant suggests, either by what they say or do, that someone else has the power to act for them, even if that person doesn’t actually have that authority.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant publicly introduced the alleged agent as their representative during a business meeting, stating that the agent had the authority to negotiate contracts on their behalf.
  * The defendant provided the alleged agent with business cards that included the defendant’s name and title, indicating the agent’s role in the organization.
  * The defendant consistently allowed the alleged agent to communicate with third parties as if they were authorized to make decisions and commitments for the defendant’s business.
  * The defendant failed to correct third parties when they referred to the alleged agent as their authorized representative, implying acceptance of the agent’s authority.
  * The defendant engaged in transactions where the alleged agent acted in a capacity that suggested they had the authority to bind the defendant to agreements.

• Element 2. The plaintiff reasonably relies on the belief that the alleged agent has authority. The plaintiff must show that they trusted the belief that the person they dealt with had the power to act on behalf of someone else, even if that person didn’t actually have that authority.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff observed the alleged agent regularly conducting business on behalf of the defendant without any objections or limitations communicated by the defendant.
  * The defendant provided the alleged agent with business cards and promotional materials that indicated the agent had authority to act on behalf of the defendant.
  * The plaintiff had previous transactions with the alleged agent where the defendant accepted the outcomes without dispute, reinforcing the belief in the agent’s authority.
  * The defendant’s website prominently featured the alleged agent as a representative, leading the plaintiff to reasonably conclude that the agent had the authority to act.
  * The plaintiff was informed by the alleged agent that they had the authority to negotiate terms on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant did not correct this assertion.

• Element 3. The plaintiff changes their position or takes action based on the belief in the agency. The plaintiff acts or makes decisions based on their belief that someone has the authority to represent another, leading them to rely on that belief in a way that affects their situation or choices.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff relied on the defendant’s representations and entered into a contract believing the defendant had the authority to act on behalf of a third party.
  * The plaintiff made a significant financial investment based on the assumption that the defendant was authorized to negotiate on behalf of the agency.
  * The plaintiff refrained from pursuing alternative opportunities because they trusted the defendant’s assurances regarding their agency status.
  * The plaintiff communicated with third parties under the impression that the defendant was acting with proper authority, leading to potential business losses.
  * The plaintiff incurred expenses in preparation for a project, believing the defendant had the necessary agency to finalize agreements with stakeholders.

^{(See Abuznaid v. Sirhal, 638 So. 2d 188 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 1994. Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Shelburne, 576 So. 2d 322 – Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 1991.)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Claim of Agency by Estoppel, it’s essential to have a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Our platform can guide you through this complex process, ensuring you’re well-prepared to advocate for your rights.

Prove Your FL Agency by Estoppel Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only