Theodore Halper, Incompetent, Valerie Halper and Wayne Halper, Co-Plenary Guardians - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         

          Bernstein v. Centaur Ins. Co., 644 F. Supp. 1361, 1369 (S.D.N.Y.            
          1986) (plaintiffs could not reasonably rely on apparent authority           
          of vice president of one of defendant's subsidiaries to bind                
          defendant, when plaintiffs had actual notice that the vice                  
          president was no longer employed by the subsidiary); Baker v.               
          McCue-Moyle Dev. Co., 695 S.W.2d 906, 912 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984)               
          (warranty deed not legal tender because when it was presented,              
          the buyer knew that the partner who signed it no longer had                 
          authority to sign, as the other partner had notified the buyer of           
          the dispute.  Further, the buyer had no duty to express his                 
          reasons for objecting to the deed because they were obvious.);              
          In re Wolf Creek Valley Metro. Dist. No. IV, 138 Bankr. 610, 618            
          (D. Colo. 1992) (even if a friend had served as an agent in the             
          past, that relationship was clearly terminated when the friend              
          explicitly notified corporate property owner that he could no               
          longer serve as an intermediary between the parties).                       
               We need not discuss Bergman’s first letter because we                  
          believe the second letter and the Form 872 signed in 1992 are               
          dispositive.  The second letter says, “Because Mr. Halper is                
          presently not competent to authorize my agreement * * * I cannot            
          sign the Form 870 which you have enclosed.”  (Emphasis added.)              
               Respondent focuses on the word “presently” as casting doubt            
          on petitioner’s condition.  However, we do not see any ambiguity.           
          We think, rather, the word is simply used to distinguish between            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011