The law does not presume agency. Disney Enter., Inc. v. Esprit Finance, Inc., 981 S.W.2d 25, 30 (Tex. App.--San
Antonio 1998, pet. dism'd w.o.j.). Absent actual or apparent authority, an agent cannot bind a principal. Suarez v.
Jordan, 35 S.W.3d 268, 272-73 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.).
Actual authority denotes that authority which the principal intentionally confers upon the agent, or intentionally
allows the agent to believe he has, or by want of ordinary care allows the agent to believe himself to possess. Id.
Apparent authority is the power of an agent to affect the legal relations of another person by transactions with
third persons. Ames v. Great S. Bank, 672 S.W.2d 447, 450 (Tex. 1984) (citing Restatement (Second) Of Agency
§ 8 (1958)).
Apparent authority arises through acts of participation, knowledge, or acquiescence by the principal which clothe
the agent with the indicia of apparent authority. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Morris, 981 S.W.2d 667, 672 (Tex. 1998).
JOHN CLYDE GUERRA v. WAL-MART STORES, INC. AND ED GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS AGENT FOR
WAL-MART; from Starr County;
4th district (04-08-00146-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 07-01-09, pet. denied Oct 2009)(employment dispute, at will
employment, no employment contract - no breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fails