Paul, who runs a retail jewelry store, went with Jane, to whom he was engaged to be married, to a wholesale jewelry store. Paul had no express, written agreement with Jane by which she was his agent. The wholesaler jeweler, Pam, asked Paul if Jane was buying for him. Paul did not want to embarrass Jane so he nodded in agreement. A few minutes later Paul whispered to Jane, outside the hearing of the wholesaler, that she should not make any purchases. Paul and Jane had a big disagreement over money that evening, and Jane broke off their engagement. The next day Jane went back to the wholesale jeweler and purchased a string of pearls for $2,000. Jane also purchased a fur jacket for $3,000 from a store, owned by Harry, that was next door to the jewelry store. She told Harry that Paul wanted a fur for a model in his store and that Paul would be glad to pay Harry for the jacket.

Which of the following is the most likely result if Harry sues Paul for the price of the jacket?

Harry will win because Jane indicated that she had apparent authority to buy the jacket for Paul.

Harry will win only if he can show that through reasonable investigative efforts on his part Jane cannot be located.

Harry will win on an implied agency theory.

Harry will win only if he can show that Jane has no assets with which to pay for the necklace.

Paul will win because he did nothing to cause Harry to believe that he would pay for the jacket.