Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)

Citation
Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Parent Document
Stoiber v. Honeychuck, 101 Cal. App. 3d 903 (1980)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1980-02-05

Other Sections in This Document (161)

Full Text

874 chars
Since the suit for breach of the implied warranty is essentially a contractual one, the trial court correctly ruled the agents could not be held liable on the breach of warranty because an agent is ordinarily not liable on the contract when he acts on behalf of a disclosed principal (see generally, 1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1973) Agency and Employment, § 185, pp. 780-781). Appellant relies on Civil Code section 2343 and Bayuk v. Edson (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 309 [46 Cal. Rptr. 49], as establishing that the agent may be held liable despite the fact that his actions were in the context of a contract. Civil Code section 2343 provides in pertinent part: “One who assumes to act as an agent is responsible to third parties as a principal for his acts in the course of his agency, in any of the following cases...: [w]hen his acts are wrongful in their nature.”