How are the facts in Walker distinguishable from the facts of Gaines v Kelly?
KE'l' RELEVANT FACTS: Kelly possessed an option to purchase certain property. He was not yet the owner of the property. In order to purchase the property, he had to obtain a loan. Kelly entered into an agreement with Thompson. who worked for a commercial real estate advising company. to assist Kelly In obtaining the loan monies. Thompson approached Southwest Guaranty's loan ofcer Gaines on behatf of Kelly. They discussed Kelly's loan needs. Gaines gave Thompson a blank loan application form. Thompson gave the loan application form to Kelly and. allegedly, told Kelly that the loan was a 'done deal.' Kelly lled out the loan application and returned it to Thompson who, in turn, submitted it to Gaines. A title search of the property, however, failed to show Kelly as the owner of the property that would serve as the loan collateral. Gaines told Thompson this fa ct and asked for proof of Kelly's ownership interest in the subiect property. Kelly failed to provide Gaines with the necessary proof of ownership. instead, Kelly demanded that l(ziaines fund the loan without the additional proof and sued Gaines and Southwest Guaranty wl'ien Gaines declined. Thompson did have authority from Gaines to deliver the loan application fomrs to Kelly. Blank loan application forms on Southwest Guaranty letterhead were on Thompson's desk in his own ofce. There was no evidence presented that Thompson had actual authority from Gaineslouthwest Guaranty to negotiate a loan to Kelly. There was no ewdence that Gaines authorized or acquiesced in Thompson's representation that the loan was a 'done deal.' KE'l RELEva FACTS: Bottle Rock entered into an agreement to purchase Bottle Rock power plant but. as a condition of the purchase. Bottle Rock was required to obtain a $5 million bond. Walker Insurance learned from Arlie Beane that Bottle Rock was seeking, this bond and agreed to assist in the acquisition of the bond. Walker alleges that Beane. on behalf of Bottle Flock. orally offered Walker a Side.\" incentive fee to acquire the bond for Bottle Flock within a certain time period. The promise of the nder's fee was never reduced to a writing. To obtain the bond, Walker approached Terry Smith, a bond broker In Boston. Walker also contacted Bottle Rocks lawyer. James Hagan. to obtain some further information about Bottle Rock Power. Walker spent eight to ten weeks negotiating and preparing the transaction to obtain the bond. Bottle Rocks lawyer Hagan did speak directly with the Boston bond broker Smith after he'd spoken wid'i Walker. Hagan later deposited funds in an account of Walker's necessary to the issuance of the bond by the Boston bonding company. Hagan testied he rst learned of Beane's alleged promise to pay Walker a finder's fee 3:] to tit] days after the issuance of the bond by the Boston bond brokerage. Insufcient evidence exists to establish that Bottle Rock. the purported principal. gave Arlie Eleane actual authority to act as its agent. Walker testied a Botde lied: director conrmed Walker's understanding of Beane's authority to act for Battle Rock. Walker also testified the majority of his interactions in obtaining what was needed from Bottle Rock for the band were between himself and Beane. Beane was the point person between Walker and Bottle Rock. Bottle Rod-t failed to pay Walker the Sll} nder's fee
