Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma; August 13, 1991; Oklahoma; State Appellate Court
The case involves Ben and Carol Douglas, who filed a small claims action against Linda Steele, a travel agent operating as The Travel Haus, Inc., due to non-delivery of a vacation package they purchased. They engaged Steele's services in March 1986, paying $1,348 for a trip through a tour company, Total Hawaii. Steele issued a check for $1,213.20 to Total Hawaii, retaining a commission, but the Douglases never received tickets or confirmations for their trip. After learning that Total Hawaii had filed for bankruptcy, they sued Steele for their payment.
In a bench trial, the court found that Steele failed to ensure the Douglases received their promised trip or a refund and determined she should have pursued a claim against the bankrupt company. The court ruled in favor of the Douglases, awarding them $1,348 plus costs. Steele's appeal claimed that the judgment was void because it combined her individual name with the corporate entity, arguing this lack of certainty rendered the judgment unenforceable. The court rejected this argument, affirming the judgment against Steele personally for the nondelivery of the vacation.
Linda Steele is identified as the party personally indebted to the Douglases in the small claims affidavit, where the addition of "dba The Travel Haus, Inc." does not alter her identification as the defendant nor invalidate the judgment. The judgment remains valid unless it is shown at trial that Steele acted solely in a representative capacity for a legitimate corporation. The case is not one where a nonexistent entity was sued or where a judgment was mistakenly entered against a defendant in their official role. Steele was sued and defended as an individual, and the judgment treated her accordingly. She could have contested her designation or the nonjoinder of The Travel Haus, Inc. at any point but failed to do so, thus waiving her right to raise these objections on appeal.
Steele argues she is not personally liable for the Douglases' losses due to Total Hawaii's failure to fulfill their contract, asserting she was a disclosed agent and not liable for breaches by the companies. However, she is liable for $134.80 that she retained for services not rendered and also for an additional $1,213.20 received from the Douglases. Evidence shows she acted solely as the Douglases’ agent when arranging their trip, aligning with established agency law, which defines her role as a special agent for that specific transaction. Her claim of being a disclosed agent for either company contradicts the law and the facts presented.
Defendant Steele served as a paid agent for the Douglases, tasked with assisting in their vacation planning. She was obligated to act with the care, skill, and diligence expected of a fiduciary, which included providing relevant information about the entities she recommended for their travel arrangements. This duty involved conducting due diligence regarding the financial stability of those entities and promptly communicating any significant information related to the travel plans. The court referenced the case of Josephs v. Fuller, emphasizing that a travel agent must have knowledge of the facilities they book, as clients rely on their expertise to avoid substandard experiences.
In this instance, Steele's suggestion for the Douglases to avoid using Total Hawaii implies she had undisclosed concerns about the company. If she was aware of financial difficulties or complaints regarding Total Hawaii, she was required to inform the Douglases. The lack of communication regarding travel confirmations further suggests that Steele either possessed negative information about Total Hawaii or should have investigated potential issues before allowing the Douglases to pay for their trip. The trial court could conclude that Steele failed to check on Total Hawaii prior to authorizing the Douglases' payment, thereby neglecting her duty to protect them from potential loss.
The agent received vacation funds from the Douglases and forwarded a check, minus her commission, to Total Hawaii but failed to fulfill her obligations to the Douglases. This established a prima facie case of liability against the agent, who needed to provide countervailing evidence but did not. The trial judge ruled in favor of the Douglases, and this decision is presumed correct. Linda Steele, the travel agent, appealed a small claims judgment of $1,348 plus costs awarded to the Douglases for a Hawaiian vacation that was not provided. The Douglases alleged the agent was indebted to them for travel and hotel expenses. Testimonies indicated that they paid the agent in cash and received no tickets or refund after learning the tour company had gone bankrupt. The trial court's judgment was based on a narrative statement of evidence, as no transcript was available, and the court found no significant evidence contradicting the Douglases' claims. The appeal was reviewed but ultimately affirmed, with one judge dissenting.
The Court agrees with the plaintiffs that the defendant did not contest the lawsuit's naming of the wrong party. The defendant's Amended Narrative Statement, submitted on July 24, 1989, included testimony from Ben Douglas, who stated that the plaintiffs chose a trip to Hawaii from options provided by the defendant. The Court noted a lack of evidence regarding the plaintiffs attempting to pay by credit card, confirming instead that they paid in cash. Linda Steele testified that she suggested a different tour operator, but the plaintiffs insisted on Total Hawaii and she complied by sending a check. She later informed the plaintiffs of Total Hawaii's bankruptcy. Upon concluding the case, the Court found that the plaintiffs had relied on the defendant's recommendations, received no services for their $1,348 cash payment, and determined that the defendant should have pursued the bankruptcy claim. Judgment was awarded to the plaintiffs for $1,348 plus costs on April 7, 1989.
The narrative statement revealed that the plaintiffs sought the defendant's help for a Hawaii trip, specifically chose Total Hawaii despite alternate suggestions, paid $1,348 in cash, and learned about the tour company's bankruptcy after failing to receive tickets. The plaintiffs bore the burden of proving the contract elements and a breach by the defendant. The majority opinion held the defendant liable for not exercising reasonable diligence regarding Total Hawaii's financial status, a conclusion deemed speculative. It was found that the plaintiffs did not provide sufficient evidence that the defendant was aware of the impending bankruptcy or failed to conduct reasonable inquiries. The opinion concluded that there was no indication the defendant possessed insider knowledge about Total Hawaii's status. Consequently, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed.
This case was filed in the small claims division of the District Court of Payne County with no stenographic record, but a narrative statement was approved for the appeal record. An endorsement clarified that Trans Ocean Travel, Leisure, Inc. operated under multiple names, including Total Hawaii.
