Silver v. Crescent Hat Co.

Eelton, J. (After stating the foregoing facts.) The direction of the verdict was error, for the reason that there were issues of fact which should have been submitted to a jury. There was no written contract binding ripon the defendant, because she did not sign it, and because no one authorized by her to do so signed it. Friedlander v. Schloss, 43 Ga. App. 646 (4) (159 S. E. 870). Therefore the provision in the contract that the order was not subject to cancellation was not binding on her as a contract. Neither was it notice that the agent did not have authority to contract that the order could be canceled. Ordinarily the duty and authority of a traveling salesman is to take orders subject to acceptance and approval of his principal. Dannenberg Co. v. Hughes, 30 Ga. App. 83 (116 S. E. 892). Under the evidence in this case the jury might or might not have inferred that the agent had the [84] authority to authorize cancellation, from the proved.fact that the agent delivered the duplicate to the agent of the defendant when the order was taken; or that there was no-written or oral notice to the defendant that the order was accepted. If approval by the principal was necessary, the jury might have found that the cancellation order amounted to a revocation of the order before notice of acceptance was given to her. If approval by the principal was necessary to complete the contract, and the defendant revoked the order before she was.notified of its acceptance, it would make no difference that the plaintiff went to the trouble and expense of making the hats and putting,the names in. All these issues were for the jury, and it was error to direct the verdict. Judgment reversed. Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.