In the Parlato v.Equitable Life Assurance Society case, the appeals court held:
A)the "public notice rule" was binding under the facts of this case.
B)the principal had a duty to give notice to the third party in this case.
C)that the principal is responsible for torts its agent or former agent commits against unknown third parties because the principal has the ability to select agents.
D)under the circumstances of this case, the agent's apparent authority with regard to the third party terminated along with his actual authority when his employment by Equitable ended.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The appeals court held that under the circumstances of this case, the agent's apparent authority with regard to the third party terminated along with his actual authority when his employment by Equitable ended. Therefore, the principal (Equitable) would not be responsible for any torts committed by the former agent against unknown third parties.

In the Parlato V