signing a lease without beeing authorized

[werner69]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

Our ex General Manager of a Golf course signed a lease for Phone equipment last year.

He was never authorized to sign it.

Is there any way to terminate it. Maybe just don´t pay the rates any longer?

Doesn´t the Lease company (Great American Leasing) have to make sure he is authorized?

All othere leases needed the owner to co sign.

Hope anyone knows the answer

 

[Silverplum]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

Our ex General Manager of a Golf course signed a lease for Phone equipment last year.

He was never authorized to sign it.

Is there any way to terminate it. Maybe just don´t pay the rates any longer?

Doesn´t the Lease company (Great American Leasing) have to make sure he is authorized?

All othere leases needed the owner to co sign.

Hope anyone knows the answer

Who's higher in command than the General Manager? What job title does that person hold?

 

[Zigner]

It is entirely reasonable to assume that the General Manager of a business is authorized to lease business equipment on behalf of the company.

 

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida

Our ex General Manager of a Golf course signed a lease for Phone equipment last year.

He was never authorized to sign it.

Is there any way to terminate it. Maybe just don´t pay the rates any longer?

Doesn´t the Lease company (Great American Leasing) have to make sure he is authorized?

All othere leases needed the owner to co sign.

Hope anyone knows the answer

You might know the answer once having done some research on the law of agency under express and apparent authority.

 

[werner69]

well I would think that the owner has to sign.

The GM was told to get authorization for everything. Of course the bank doesn´t know. But still I would guess that a lease has to be cosigned by the owner.

So if we stop paying.... can they get after him or after the company?

 

[Zigner]

well I would think that the owner has to sign.

The GM was told to get authorization for everything. Of course the bank doesn´t know. But still I would guess that a lease has to be cosigned by the owner.

So if we stop paying.... can they get after him or after the company?

Of course you would - you want to get out of it.

Yes, they can come after the company and likely him too (if he personally guaranteed it)

 

[Silverplum]

http://management.about.com/od/policiesandprocedures/g/gm1.htm

Other than learning Basic Business 101, I suggest you-all give out the following job titles to your future employees:

Lackey
Powerless Tool
Errand Boy/Errand Girl​

 

[tranquility]

well I would think that the owner has to sign.

The GM was told to get authorization for everything. Of course the bank doesn´t know. But still I would guess that a lease has to be cosigned by the owner.

So if we stop paying.... can they get after him or after the company?

They can go after the company on the theory of agency. At the very least, the GM would look like he is acting for the company.

The company, if the GM clearly did not have the authority, could go after the GM. But, the facts would have to be pretty clear in a situation like this. It would almost have to be he was specifically denied the power rather than a more nebulous that he was not given the power to do the act.

 

[werner69]

He was told that he is not allowed to purchase anything more than $ 1,000.00 without getting it approved by the owner.

I do not know if the leasing company has to check on who the owner is.

It is just a lease for the Telephones. It is 280/month x 60 = 16800

A lot for 5 phones....

but as Ron white says.... you can´t fix stupid

 

[Zigner]

He was told that he is not allowed to purchase anything more than $ 1,000.00 without getting it approved by the owner.

I do not know if the leasing company has to check on who the owner is.

It is just a lease for the Telephones. It is 280/month x 60 = 16800

A lot for 5 phones....

but as Ron white says.... you can´t fix stupid

It could be seen as a (recurring) $280 purchase which is well within his signatory authority.

The equipment provider is not going to eat this one.

 

[Silverplum]

...but as Ron white says.... you can´t fix stupid

No, but you can learn Basic Business Practices 101 & 102.

 

[j_doyle]

The Owner is not always a logical choice

Stockholders are the owners of a company. It is not reasonable to expect the phone provider to do the research required to track down, and get all the signatures of every stockholder for a $ 280 a month bill.

 

[justalayman]

You have no argument to terminate the contract now. Even if you were able to based on the gm not having the authority to bind the company, continuing the service for the time you have has removed any chance of winning based on that argument. Allowing the service to run for the time it has without question proves that he did have the authority or the person with authority ratified the gm's acceptance by failing to act.

 

[justalayman]

On top of that, I see he was not allowed to purchase anything above $1000. No idea why you think that applies as he has not purchased anything. He entered into a lease which is not a purchase of anything.

 

[Zigner]

On top of that, I see he was not allowed to purchase anything above $1000. No idea why you think that applies as he has not purchased anything. He entered into a lease which is not a purchase of anything.

I agree. Even if you interpret it as he's not allowed to incur any expense on behalf of the company over $1,000, the way I see it (as mentioned above) is that the GM signed for a recurring $280 expense, well under the $1,000 limit.