PJC Business

C ONTRACTS

PJC 101.15

claim authority; and second, from the principal’s negligently bestowing on the agent such indications of authority that a reasonably prudent person is led to rely on the exis tence of that authority. Gaines , 235 S.W.3d at 182–84. Because apparent authority is based on estoppel, the principal’s conduct must be that which would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that authority exists. Gaines , 235 S.W.3d at 182. A principal’s full knowledge of all material facts is essen tial to establish a claim of apparent authority, and only the conduct of the principal is relevant for determining the existence of apparent authority. Gaines , 235 S.W.3d at 182. Declarations of the alleged agent, without more, are incompetent to establish either the existence of the alleged agency or the scope of the alleged agent’s authority. South west Title Insurance Co. v. Northland Building Corp. , 552 S.W.2d 425, 428 (Tex. 1977). Instead, “apparent authority must be based on the acts of the principal” and “is limited to the scope of responsibility that is apparently authorized.” First Valley Bank of Los Fresnos v. Martin , 144 S.W.3d 466, 471 (Tex. 2004). If apparent authority is not an issue, the phrase “or apparent authority” should be deleted from the first paragraph of the instruction, along with the definition of appar ent authority.

69