evidence indicating that Bass did not object to the postponement, it is also clear that neither KERS nor Bass himself ever represented that Bass had any authority to bind KERS. (Sims dep. at 311). ATC cites Sims’s deposition assertion that he thought Bass was an agent of KERS. This rather overstates the evidence. Sims’s deposition directly indicates that Bass’s status was ambiguous, stating that Bass “had been acting in a role as&emdash;I guess it would be agent or go-between for ATC&emdash;or for KERS with ATC.” (Dep. at 310). Just as importantly, ATC has presented no evidence that KERS did anything which would reasonably lead Sims or ATC to believe that Bass was acting as authority to bind KERS. See Finnegan Construction Co. v. Robino-Ladd Co., 354 A.2d 142, 144-45 (Del.Super.1976) (<HOLDING>). The final set of arguments presented by the
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 not hable for the actions of an agent when these actions exceed the agents authority and the thirdparty has knowledge that the agent does not have the authority asserted holding that both agent and principal will be liable when the agent acts within the scope of his employment but for his own purposes 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 apparent authority can never be derived from the acts of the agent alone but is to be determined by indicia of authority given by the principal