Paul Remmes v. The Mark Travel Corporation
116 A.3d 466
Me.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (Remmeses and Begins) paid travel agent Beth Rogers/TravelWise checks totaling about $35,000 for group airfare and all‑inclusive resort accommodations that Rogers booked through The Mark Travel Corporation (Mark Travel).
- Rogers forwarded only part of those funds to Mark Travel to pay airfare and used other clients’ credit card information (without consent) to pay for lodging; Mark Travel later learned of the credit‑card fraud and reversed charges.
- Mark Travel canceled the plaintiffs’ resort reservations for nonpayment, then offered to rebook if plaintiffs paid and signed releases authorizing charges and waiving claims; plaintiffs paid and signed releases and Mark Travel rebooked at the same rate.
- Plaintiffs sued Mark Travel and Rogers for breach of contract, economic duress, and violation of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act, alleging Rogers was Mark Travel’s agent and that they were forced to pay twice.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Mark Travel, finding (1) Rogers was the plaintiffs’ agent, not Mark Travel’s; (2) Mark Travel rescinded the original lodging contract for failure of consideration; and (3) the releases barred plaintiffs’ claims. Default judgments were entered against Rogers; plaintiffs appealed the judgment for Mark Travel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rogers was Mark Travel’s agent | Rogers acted on behalf of Mark Travel when she booked and accepted payments; Mark Travel is liable for her acts | No written agency, no authorization, Rogers was plaintiffs’ agent; Mark Travel never held Rogers out as its agent | Rogers was plaintiffs’ agent as a matter of law; no agency or apparent authority for Mark Travel (summary judgment affirmed) |
| Whether Mark Travel could rescind original lodging contract for failure of consideration | Rescission improper because Mark Travel accepted bookings and issued travel documents; plaintiffs entitled to enforcement without paying twice | Rescission valid because payments to Rogers were fraudulent and Mark Travel did not receive valid consideration | Rescission for failure of consideration was proper because Mark Travel did not receive valid payment due to Rogers’s fraud |
| Whether releases signed to obtain rebooking bar plaintiffs’ claims | Releases were signed under duress/economic coercion and therefore unenforceable | Releases were knowingly signed and valid; they release claims against Mark Travel | Releases barred plaintiffs’ claims; summary judgment properly granted on that alternative ground |
| Whether plaintiffs stated claims for economic duress and UTPA violations | Mark Travel is liable for agent’s conduct and engaged in unconscionable conduct/duress | No agency; no wrongful conduct by Mark Travel; contractual releases waive claims | Economic duress and UTPA claims failed as a matter of law (no agency / releases enforceable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Perkins v. Philbrick, 443 A.2d 73 (Me. 1982) (ratification requires principal to know all material facts)
- Levesque v. Cent. Me. Med. Ctr., 52 A.3d 933 (Me. 2012) (elements of apparent agency and necessity of principal conduct that leads third party to rely)
- Beal v. Allstate Ins. Co., 989 A.2d 733 (Me. 2010) (summary judgment standard: view facts in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Williams v. Inverness Corp., 664 A.2d 1244 (Me. 1995) (apparent authority requires principal’s conduct creating belief in agency)
- Simpson v. Compagnie Nationale Air France, 248 N.E.2d 117 (Ill. 1969) (travel agent as traveler’s agent; agent/broker characterization)
- State ex rel. Elson v. Koehr, 856 S.W.2d 57 (Mo. 1993) (agency found where written sales agency agreement existed)