ATLANTA TRUCK PARTS, INC.
ZENON & ZENON CONTRACTORS, INC.
MCFADDEN, P. J., RAY and RICKMAN, JJ.
MCFADDEN, PRESIDING JUDGE.
bench trial, the trial court awarded Zenon & Zenon
Contractors, Inc. $128, 972.90 in its breach-of-contract
action against Atlanta Truck Parts, Inc. Atlanta Truck Parts
appeals, arguing that the person who signed the contract on
its behalf lacked the authority to do so. But the evidence
supported a finding that the owner of Atlanta Truck Parts
authorized that person to act on the company's behalf.
Atlanta Truck Parts also argues that the evidence does not
support the amount of the judgment because Zenon &
Zenon's work was deficient and it presented no receipts
to support its claim. But the testimony of Zenon &
Zenon's owner supported the award. So we affirm the
trial judge sitting without a jury is entitled to have his
judgment considered as a verdict by a jury, and if there is
any evidence to support the finding, it should be affirmed.
Also the evidence must be construed most strongly in favor of
the prevailing party." Broadcast Concepts v. Optimus
Fin. Svcs., 274 Ga.App. 632, 635-36 (3) (618 S.E.2d 612)
(2005) (citations and punctuation omitted).
construed, the evidence shows that Patricia Neville, who had
died by the time of trial, was the owner of Atlanta Truck
Parts. Orlando Zenon ("Zenon") is the sole owner of
Zenon & Zenon, a demolition contractor. In 2012, Zenon
discussed with Neville and her employee, Edwin Robles,
completing the work necessary to prepare the Atlanta Truck
Parts property to lease out space to park trucks. At
Neville's request, Zenon prepared a proposal.
delivered the proposal to Robles, and together they presented
it to Neville. Robles signed the proposal in Neville's
and Zenon's presence while Neville was on the phone.
Zenon did not insist that Neville sign the proposal because
he had seen Robles handle Neville's business for her and
he had witnessed Robles sign work orders and proposals on
behalf of Atlanta Truck Parts in the presence of Neville.
Zenon & Zenon presented two other witnesses who testified
that Robles handled business for and signed checks on behalf
of Atlanta Truck Parts.
trial, Zenon described the work he performed, testified that
he completed all of the work in the proposal, and identified
pictures of the property before and after the work was
performed. Once he had completed the job, Zenon delivered an
invoice to Robles and Neville. When Atlanta Truck Parts did
not pay, Zenon & Zenon filed this action.
Truck Parts argues that the trial court erred in entering
judgment for Zenon & Zenon because Robles lacked actual
or apparent authority to enter the contract on behalf of
Atlanta Truck Parts. We disagree.
relation of principal and agent arises wherever one person,
expressly or by implication, authorizes another to act for
him or subsequently ratifies the acts of another in his
behalf." OCGA § 10-6-1. A principal-agent
may arise by implication as well as by express authority, and
agency may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Agency may
result where one party has apparent authority to effect the
legal relations of another party by transactions with a third
party, but . . . apparent authority to do an act is created
as to a third person when the statements or conduct of the
alleged principal reasonably cause the third person to
believe that the principal consents to have the act done on
his behalf by the purported agent.
Hinely v. Barrow, 169 Ga.App. 529, 530 (313 S.E.2d
739) (1984) (citation and emphasis omitted).
Further, an estoppel arises as against the denial of agency
when a principal places a purported agent in a position of
apparent authority so that a person of ordinary prudence
conversant with business usages and the nature of the
particular business is justified in assuming that such agent
has the ...