CSX Transportation sued Recovery Express and Interstate Demolition and Environmental Corp for breach of contract. CSX believed that Albert Arillotta, who identified himself as a "partner" at IDEC, had apparent authority to act on behalf of Recovery Express and IDEC based on the domain name of the email and his representations. CSX sent railcars to a location specified by Arillotta, and Recovery and IDEC refused to pay CSX leading to legal action. Recovery claims that Arillotta never worked for them, and IDEC was allowed to share email services with them. The case presents a novel issue of whether an email domain name alone can establish apparent authority for a purported agent.
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Recovery Express, Inc. (2006)
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
415 F. Supp. 2d 6
Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]
---
Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.
Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]
Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.
Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]
