Stein Eriksen Lodge Owners Assn., Inc. v. MX Technologies Inc.
Utah Court of Appeals
508 P.3d 138 (2022)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
MX Technologies Inc. (MX) (defendant) was considering hosting a corporate conference. Stein Eriksen Lodge (Stein) (plaintiff) was tentatively identified as the site for the potential event, and the events manager and events coordinator were tasked with negotiating a prospective contract with Stein. The events manager executed contracts with Stein for rooms, food, and services totaling more than $350,000. Although MX’s company policy required the chief financial officer (CFO) to approve any payments over $20,000, the events manager, who was a recent hire, did not obtain the CFO’s approval. The events manager claimed that she instead obtained approval from her supervisor, the chief marketing officer (CMO). However, the CMO denied granting such approval. MX ultimately decided not to host the event. When Stein sought performance of the contracts, MX claimed that the contracts were invalid because the events manager lacked authority to execute them on MX’s behalf. Stein sued MX for breach of contract. The district court granted summary judgment in Stein’s favor, holding that, as a matter of law, the events manager had authority to sign the contracts and MX was therefore bound by them. MX appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harris, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 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.
