This is an action by the appellee to collect $580.95 on an open account fоr roofing materials. In appellant’s answer he admitted the purchases and by cross complaint sought $2,025.00 in damages as the “proximate result of the material not being as represеnted and guaranteed * * *” by the appellee. The court, sitting as a jury, found the issues in favor of thе appellee. The appellant, on appeal, relies upon two pоints for reversal. We combine them for discussion on sufficiency of evidence since both рoints, in effect, contend that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the findings of the court as triеr of the facts.
Appellant ordered and purchased roofing materials from appellee through a Maurice Bowman who Avas appellant’s tenant. Appellant testified that, upon Boavman’s recommendation, he employed and paid a certain individuаl to apply the roofing materials and that Boavman supervised the application. Within a short period of time after the application of the product on the roоf, leaking occurred which damaged the interior and furnishings of appellant’s apartment building. Additiоnal roofing material was ordered and applied to no avail and within a few months it beсame necessary to install a “complete new roof”. Appellant contends Mr. Bowman told him he was appellee’s agent and that he relied on Bowman’s unconditional representation and guarantee that the roofing material would keep his roof from lеaking for ten years and, therefore, appellee is bound by its agent’s representations. The law is well settled that neither an agency nor the scope of an agency can be established by the declarations or actions of a purported agent. Smith v. Pleasаnt,
Further, it is a well established rule of law as to principal and agent that the nature and extent of an agent’s authority, when the evidence is in conflict, is a question of fact for the jury. Bradley Advertising, Inc., v. Froug Stores, Inc.,
The invoice received by appellant reads inter alia:
“No representations, agreements or promise of the salesman (not shown on this invoice) whether verbal or in writing, shall be valid, except when confirmed in writing by an officer of the company. ’ ’
There is no evidence that appellee was ever aware of or confirmed in any manner Bowman’s unconditional representation. The brochure and the material replacement guarantee, 1 in substance, provides for replacement of the material for a period of ten years to keep a roof in waterproof condition when applied according to instructions. According to appellee’s chief chemist the roofing material is waterproof when proрerly applied. It is significant in this case that no witness testified the Four Seasons Fibred Aluminum Coating roоfing material was applied according to requirements.
On innumerable occasions wе have held that in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict all оf the evidence must be viewed, with every reasonable inference derived therefrom, in the light most favorable to the appellee. Harkrider v. Cox,
The judgment is affirmed.
Notes
“Should FOUR SEASONS be applied according to our simple printed instructions and fail to give you ROOFING, METAL or MASONRY PROTECTION for Ten Years from invoice date, except in case of earthquakes and other acts of God, and the account discharged per terms of order, we hereby agree to furnish NO CHARGE sufficient additional FOUR SEASONS TO KEEP your roofing, metal or masonry surface in a waterproof condition for the full duration of the TEN YEAR GUARANTEE PERIOD.”