Clark Resources, Inc. v. Verizon Business Network Services, Inc.
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
2012 WL 1339697 (2012)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
Subcontractor Clark Resources, Inc. (Clark Resources) (plaintiff) sued alleging Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. (Verizon) (defendant) orally accepted a subcontract proposal through Verizon’s area sales vice president for government and education in Pennsylvania and Delaware, Bette DeRogatis. Verizon bid on a Pennsylvania government telecommunications project and asked Clark Resources to submit a proposal for a subcontract. Clark Resources’ president and chief executive officer, Frank Clark, submitted a proposal and met with DeRogatis. DeRogatis told Clark that Verizon would use his proposal as the basis for a contract and that he had a “deal.” Clark believed DeRogatis had authority to bind Verizon because of her title, she held herself out as in charge of the project and was the highest-ranking Verizon employee Clark met, and everyone else he dealt with at Verizon appeared to report to her. When Verizon refused to honor DeRogatis’s deal, Clark Resources sued to enforce the subcontract, which was worth approximately $7.5 million over 10 years. Verizon requested summary judgment, submitting an affidavit from DeRogatis stating she had no authority to contract with Clark Resources on Verizon’s behalf. Clark Resources countered that DeRogatis had apparent authority but did not dispute that she lacked actual authority.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kane, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
