Rewrite this for me "The appellate court refused to apply the theory of 'respondent superior' because Marsh, being the actual broker, individually operated the franchise of Coldwell Banker Citrus Valley Realtors. Thus, Marsh individually owed a fiduciary duty towards the appellant which set aside the doctrine of 'respondent superion'. The Appellate Court say that the theory of ostensible agency might apply because the large print disclaimer of Coldwell Banker's franchise could make a reasonable person to believe Marsh as an ostensible agent of Coldwell Banker and he was dealing with Coldwell Banker. Thus, this misconception could give rise to a partial theory of ostensible agents