have the returned goods, we cannot say that the trial court’s conclusion that German Auto Tops did, in fact, receive the seat covers was erroneous. Although Adsit is not actually located in California, we find that it was reasonable for the Gustins to return the goods to the California address on the original shipping label. Moreover, although German Auto Tops was not normally Adsit’s agent for the purpose of accepting returned goods, Adsit’s instruction to include its name on the shipping label was an indirect manifestation to the Gustins that the business located at the California address was authorized to accept returned goods. Thus, we conclude that German Auto Tops, acting as Adsit’s agent, had apparent authority to accept the returned seat covers. See Gallant, 751 N.E.2d at 675 (<HOLDING>). Under these circumstances, we find that when
holding that when an agent has limited authority and informs the third party of this limitation the principal is not bound by the agents actions that exceed that authority holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding that apparent authority refers to a third partys reasonable belief that the principal has authorized the acts of its agent it arises from the principals indirect or direct manifestations to a third party holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party