How did the appeals court rule in Steven A.B.Hannington v Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania and Dr.Mark Bernstein,the case in the textbook where the plaintiff,a student suing for alleged wrongful expulsion,attempted to avoid a settlement agreement entered into by an attorney acting on his behalf?
A)The settlement agreement would be set aside because the attorney had exceeded his authority.
B)The settlement agreement would be set aside both because the attorney had exceeded his authority and because the doctrine of apparent authority was inapplicable.
C)The settlement agreement would be enforced based on the doctrine of apparent authority,but only in part because the college was comparatively at fault in placing unjustified reliance on the attorney's authority.
D)The settlement agreement would be enforced based on the doctrine of apparent authority,regardless of whether the attorney exceeded the scope of his actual authority.
E)A jury should determine the enforceability of the settlement agreement based upon its reasonableness.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

According to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania,if the plaintiff's attorney had exceeded the scope of his authority,the doctrine of apparent authority would be applicable,giving the university the right to rely on the representation of the attorney to enter into a binding contract.

How Did the Appeals Court Rule in Steven A