William Roberts operated a McDonald's restaurant under a franchise agreement with McDonald's Corporation. Roberts hired 23-year-old David Mabin, who was just released from jail for robbery, drug use, and theft, as an hourly worker. Soon, Roberts promoted Mabin to assistant manager on the night shift at the restaurant. A 15-year-old girl began working at the McDonald's, and she quickly became involved with Mabin, who provided her with free food, alcohol, and drugs (including ecstasy) and kissed her openly in the workplace. Just before the girl's sixteenth birthday, Mabin took her to a motel where they spent the night and engaged in sexual intercourse. The girl and her family later brought suit against McDonald's Corporation, claiming that McDonald's Corporation was the principal to Roberts through apparent agency. McDonald's Corporation was supposed to be a business with a wholesome reputation and a safe workplace, but instead the minor was taken advantage of by her assistant manager. The girl argued for apparent agency with McDonald's as the principal because she claimed that as far as she was concerned, she worked for McDonald's Corporation, not just the franchise. She had a McDonald's logo on her uniform, her paycheck, and restaurant products. However, the application she filled out for employment stated, I understand that my employer is an independent Owner/Operator of a McDonald's franchise and that I am not employed by McDonald's Corporation or any of its subsidiaries. The independent Owner/Operator of this restaurant is solely responsible for all terms, conditions and any other issues concerning my employment. Was there an apparent agency relationship between McDonald's Corporation and the franchise? Why or why not? [D.L.S. et al. v. David Mabin et al., 130 Wn. App. 94, 121 P.3d 1210 (2005).]