Scenario:Your client, Hospitality Resorts International, Inc., which does business in your state, is defending an action against James Panhandle, a 70- year-old doctor from Akron, Ohio, who slipped and fell at a London hotel bearing the name Hospitality Resorts of London on January 28, 2014. Panhandle, a semi-retired general practice physician, smashed his head on some wet marble flooring next to the pool. A sign saying "slippery when wet" was set up next to the pool, but Panhandle didn't see the sign. He sustained severe and permanent injuries and was unable to practice medicine for two years.

Panhandle often stayed at the Hospitality Resorts. The resorts were known for cleanliness and hospitality. The staff was friendly and always helpful. The advertising for the resorts claimed that it was the "cleanest in the world. We stay on top of our hotels." Most advertisements stated that the hotels were independently owned and operated. Some ads, such as the one that appeared in the Doctor's Weekly, which Panhandle read, did not state that independent owners owned the London hotel. That ad boasted about the resort, "We care about you. We take care of you. We take care of your homeour resort." Hospitality Resorts was a trade name. The company that licensed the name Hospitality Resorts to other hotels was called Hospitality Resorts International, Inc. (HRII), your client.

Hospitality Resorts licensed its trade name to Fred and Ethel Carrigan of London, England, for use in a hotel there. The Carrigans called the hotel Hospitality Resorts of Lon- don. As part of the license agreement, Hospitality Resorts provided train- ing to the staff. The Carrigans hired and red the staff. HRII had no authority to hire and re staff.

Panhandle did not know anything about the training or the connection between the London hotel and HRII.

HRII provided operations manuals and suggested procedures and menus. Personnel from HRII regularly traveled to London to advise the hotel employees about their jobs. HRII had no ownership interest in theLondon hotel. HRII was not authorized to act on behalf of the hotel nor was the hotel authorized to act on behalf of HRH.

The license agreement between HRII and Hospitality Resort of London only provided for HRII to provide its name Hospitality Resort to the London hotel as well as some manuals and technical assistance. It did not authorize the London hotel to act as its agent and HRII was not an agent of the London hotel. HRII did include the Hospitality Resort of London in its list of Hospitality Resorts. That list appeared in many ads as well as in a brochure.

Plaintiff led suit against the Hospitality Resort in London and Hos- pitality Resorts, and Hospitality Resorts International, Inc., alleging that HRII is in an agency relationship or apparent or ostensible agency rela- tionship with the London Hospitality Resort. Thus, plaintiff claims that HRII and the London hotel are both responsible for his injuries. This suit was led in the United States District Court for your area. All the rules of that court and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures apply.

Issue:Does our client have a good defense to the plaintiff's claim that it was in an agency relationship with the London hotel?

Rule:Assume that the highest court in your state has held that a hotel owner can be liable based upon the theory of apparent agency. Under that theory, if a business allows another to hold itself out as its representative or the individual or entity holds itself as acting on behalf of the business, the business may be liable for the acts of the individual or entity. Also assume that a decision of the federal appellate court in your area follows your high court's decision.

Topic Question(s):Review the following facts. (1) Make a list of the legally significant facts. Then (2) prepare questions presented/issue statement and (3) a brief answer/conclusion for this problem.