Master New Jersey appellate decision imposing liability on a retailer under apparent authority/estoppel when an impostor posing as a salesperson defrauded a customer inside the store. with this comprehensive case brief.
Hoddeson v. Koos Bros. is a leading New Jersey case on apparent authority and agency by estoppel in the retail context. It addresses who should bear the loss when an impostor, operating from within a merchant’s premises, appears to be an employee and consummates a fraudulent sale with a customer. The decision reframes apparent authority in terms of institutional responsibility and reasonable business supervision, emphasizing that a merchant’s failure to police its sales floor can create liability—even absent any express grant of authority to the wrongdoer.
For law students, Hoddeson is significant because it demonstrates the convergence of classic agency principles with negligence-based estoppel. The court recognizes that while apparent authority typically requires manifestations attributable to the principal, a principal’s negligent omissions can also create the appearance of authority. That approach allocates loss to the party best positioned to prevent fraud: the store that controls the environment and can institute safeguards against impostors.
Hoddeson v. Koos Bros., 47 N.J. Super. 224, 135 A.2d 702 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1957)
The plaintiff, Mrs. Hoddeson, visited Koos Bros., a retail furniture store, to purchase bedroom furniture. While on the showroom floor, she was approached by a man who behaved and presented himself as a Koos Bros. salesperson. He assisted her in selecting furniture, negotiated terms, and accepted her payment within the store. He furnished paperwork purporting to evidence the sale, and he conducted the transaction from an area and in a manner that appeared consistent with store practice. The furniture was never delivered, and it later emerged that the man was an impostor, not employed by Koos Bros., and he had absconded with the payment. The store denied the sale and refused to deliver the goods or refund the money, maintaining that no authorized salesperson had consummated the transaction and that its internal records showed no sale. The trial court effectively took the case from the jury (entering judgment for Koos Bros.), concluding that there was no agency relationship and no sufficient basis for apparent authority. On appeal, the Appellate Division considered whether the store could be liable based on apparent authority or agency by estoppel arising from the store’s failure to reasonably supervise its premises and protect customers from impostors.
Can a retailer be held liable under apparent authority or agency by estoppel for a fraudulent sale made by an impostor posing as a salesperson on its premises when the retailer’s failure to exercise reasonable care created or permitted the appearance of authority that misled the customer?
Apparent authority arises when a principal, by its manifestations or conduct, causes a third person reasonably to believe that another is authorized to act on the principal’s behalf, and the third person justifiably relies on that appearance to their detriment. A principal may also be estopped from denying an agency relationship where, through negligence or lack of reasonable supervision, it enables a third party to appear to be its agent and thereby causes a loss to an innocent customer. In such circumstances, the loss is placed on the party whose conduct or omissions created or permitted the misleading appearance of authority.
Yes. The court held that a retailer may be liable under apparent authority/agency by estoppel when, through failure to exercise reasonable care in supervising its sales floor, it permits an impostor to appear as its salesperson and transact with a customer who reasonably relies on that appearance. The appellate court reversed the judgment for Koos Bros. and remanded for a new trial so that a jury could determine whether the store’s conduct created the appearance of authority and whether the plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable.
The court framed the case as one involving two innocent parties—the customer and the retailer—both deceived by an impostor. It asked which party should bear the loss and focused on who was in the best position to prevent the fraud. Although classic apparent authority doctrine emphasizes affirmative representations by the principal, the court recognized that manifestations can include the principal’s conduct and the environment it controls. Here, the impostor operated openly on the sales floor, behaving as a salesperson and conducting a transaction that, to a reasonable customer, appeared consistent with the store’s ordinary practices. The store controlled the premises and had the ability to design and enforce procedures to distinguish genuine employees from impostors, such as identification badges, routing all payments to a cashier, issuing official receipts, and floor supervision. The court relied on principles akin to agency by estoppel and negligence: when a principal’s lack of reasonable care enables an impostor to mislead third parties, the principal is estopped from disavowing the impostor’s apparent authority. The court invoked the equitable maxim that between two innocent parties, the one whose acts or omissions made the fraud possible should bear the loss. It found that the trial court erred in removing the case from the jury. Whether Koos Bros. exercised reasonable care, whether its conduct created an appearance of authority, and whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on that appearance were factual questions. Likewise, any argument that the plaintiff failed to obtain official documentation or to go through the cashier system went to comparative reasonableness and reliance—issues for the trier of fact, not grounds for peremptory dismissal.
Hoddeson is a staple in agency courses for illustrating that apparent authority encompasses not just express words but also the principal’s negligence in creating misleading appearances. It extends the reach of estoppel to retail operations, stressing institutional safeguards and loss allocation. For exam purposes, the case highlights how to analyze principal manifestations, the reasonableness of third-party reliance, and the role of business practices in creating or dispelling apparent authority. It is also a policy lesson: the law incentivizes businesses to supervise their environments, because they are best situated to deter impostors and prevent fraud.
The case emphasizes that a principal’s manifestations include not only explicit statements but also the conditions and practices the principal creates. Negligent failure to supervise a store floor, require identification, or control payment procedures can amount to manifestations that reasonably suggest authority. If a customer relies on those appearances, the principal may be estopped from denying agency.
No. Liability turns on whether the principal failed to exercise reasonable care and whether the customer’s reliance was justified. If the store had reasonable safeguards, clearly communicated procedures (e.g., payments only to cashiers with official receipts), and the customer ignored obvious red flags, a jury might find no apparent authority or no justifiable reliance.
Whether Koos Bros. negligently permitted the impostor to act as a salesperson; whether the store’s environment and practices created a reasonable appearance of authority; whether the plaintiff justifiably relied on that appearance; and whether any failure by the plaintiff to obtain official documentation or use the cashier was unreasonable under the circumstances.
It aligns with Restatement (Second) of Agency principles on apparent authority and estoppel (e.g., §§ 8B, 27, and related sections), recognizing that a principal’s conduct or negligence can create liability when a third party reasonably relies on an appearance of authority created by the principal.
Businesses should implement clear payment procedures (cashier-only payments), require and display employee identification, issue uniform official receipts, train staff to identify and report suspicious actors, and maintain visible supervision on the sales floor. These measures reduce the risk of impostors and support a defense that the business exercised reasonable care.
Not automatically. The customer’s conduct is relevant to whether reliance was reasonable, which is typically a jury question. If the customer ignored unmistakable signs of fraud, that could defeat reliance; but ordinary trust in an apparently normal in-store transaction can be reasonable despite later-discovered irregularities.
Hoddeson v. Koos Bros. assigns responsibility for impostor fraud to the party best positioned to prevent it. By treating negligent supervision as a basis for apparent authority or agency by estoppel, the case underscores that a merchant’s environment and practices can create actionable appearances of authority.
For students and practitioners, the decision illustrates the interplay between agency doctrine and negligence principles. It is a reminder that agency law is not solely about formal grants of power; it also polices the real-world signals and systems that shape a third party’s reasonable beliefs when entering a transaction on a business’s premises.