Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Company

126 Ariz. 133, 613 P.2d 293 (1980)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nogales Service Center v. Atlantic Richfield Company

Arizona Court of Appeals
126 Ariz. 133, 613 P.2d 293 (1980)

  • Written by Heather Whittemore, JD

Facts

In 1969 Nogales Service Center (Nogales) entered into an agreement with Atlantic Richfield Company (Atlantic) to construct a facility that included a service station, coffee shop, motel, restaurant, and offices. Atlantic lent Nogales $300,000 to finance construction. The companies also entered into an agreement for Atlantic to supply the service station with fuel, at prices determined by Atlantic. The facility opened in 1970 but did not include the motel or restaurant. Further, Atlantic’s price for fuel was not competitive with nearby service stations. As a result, the facility was not profitable. Eventually, Joe Tucker, Atlantic’s manager of truck-stop marketing, told Nogales that Atlantic would lend Nogales $100,000 for the construction of the motel and restaurant, give the facility a one-cent discount on fuel, and ensure that the facility was competitive. Atlantic lent Nogales the $100,000 but declined to give Nogales the fuel discount and never made the facility competitive. Nogales defaulted on its loans from Atlantic. Atlantic brought a foreclosure action against Nogales. Nogales filed a counterclaim against Atlantic for Atlantic’s failure to make the facility competitive or give Nogales a one-cent discount on fuel. At trial, Atlantic argued that Tucker did not have the authority to make those promises. The trial court gave a jury instruction regarding the concept of apparent authority, explaining that an agent only has the authority that its principal actually or implicitly gave him. Nogales did not object to this instruction. The trial court refused to give a contradictory jury instruction, Instruction 21, which explained that a principal is bound by agreements its agent makes if the party who made the agreement with the agent reasonably believed that the agent had the purported authority. Nogales challenged the court’s rejection of Instruction 21, arguing that it supported Nogales’s argument that Atlantic was bound to the agreements through Tucker’s inherent agency power.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Howard, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 833,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 833,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership