Rod, an owner-operator truck driver working as an independent contractor, was transporting freezers for Maria & Dan when his truck was stolen. It was found in a junkyard, its diesel fuel spilling into the water. Rod called the dispatcher for Samuels to notify her of the situation. Environmental Protectors Company arrived on the scene with a contract to remove the diesel fuel. Rod was told that the contract needed to be signed before clean-up could begin, and he later testified that the Protectors representative told him the contract was between Protectors and Maria & dan. The Protectors rep asked Rod if he was "Maria," and when Rod said "no," the Protectors rep testified that he told Rod to contact Mrs. Maria and "get approval" before fuel removal services would begin. The Protectors rep then saw Rod make a phone call and when the call ended, Rod said he received authorization to sign the contract. Lance signed the contract believing he had the authority to do so.

The Protectors rep mailed a copy of the contract and a $15,000 invoice to Maria & Dan. Maria never responded, nor did it pay the invoice. Maria never asserted Rod's lack of authority as the basis for non-payment, nor did Maria ever dispute the bill or the contract. Protectors sued Maria & Dan for non-payment six months later.

1). What legal arguments should Protectors advance to establish Maria & Dan's liability under the contract?

2). What counter-arguments should Maria & Dan raise to defend against the Protectors' suit?

3). Are there grounds to hold Rod liable for payment of the invoice? Explain.