Under the circumstances shown herein, with the limitations of the agency of appellant's representatives known to respondents, the respondents could not acquire rights against appellant contrary to those known limitations. American Surety Co. v. Lind, 132 Wn. 326, 232 P. 280; Chamberlain v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 42 Idaho 604, 247 P. 12; Federal Deposit Ins. Corporation v. Grim, 184 Okl. 275, 86 P.2d 774; Terminix Co. v. Contractors' State License Board, 84 Cal.App.2d 167, 190 P.2d 24; Ellis v. Nelson, 68 Nev. 410, 233 P.2d 1072, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Collier, 205 Okl. 247, 237 P.2d 153; Barbour v. Johnson, 201 Or. 375, 269 P.2d 531, 270 P.2d 673; 2 Am.Jur., Agency, § 99, p. 80; 2 C.J.S., Agency, § 92, p. 1188. Appellant's aforesaid assignment is well taken.

Indeed, the testimony of Charlotte Taylor that McDonald's offer of a warranty at the September 1998 meeting "was the first we had heard about a warranty" demonstrates that plaintiffs arguably were put on notice that McDonald lacked authority to take that action. See Barbour et al. v. Johnson et al, 201 Or 375, 383, 269 P2d 531, on reh'g, 270 P2d 633 (1954) (a principal is not bound by acts of an agent in excess of the agent's actual authority "`where the facts and circumstances * * * are such as to put [the third person] upon inquiry as to the authority'" of the agent (quoting Phez Co. u. Salem Fruit Union et al., 113 Or 398, 429, 233 P 547 (1925)); see also id. at 387 ("Apparent authority does not arise where the lack of the agent's authority is known, or should be known, to the party dealing with the agent."). Second, even assuming that plaintiffs knew of McDonald's title or position as ChemRex's territory manager for Oregon as of the time of the September 1998 meeting — which is not established in the record — such evidence would be insufficient to allow a jury to find or infer that persons in that position customarily had authority to warrant products.

The third party must also rely on that belief. See Barbour et al. v. Johnson et al., 201 Or. 375, 387, 269 P.2d 531, 270 P.2d 673 (1954); Restatement (Second) of Agency §§ 8, 27 (1958). There is substantial evidence in this case to support the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff did nothing to give defendant the impression that plaintiff had granted Deupree authority to approve the April 10 date.

In re Jackson's Estate, 112 Cal.App.2d 16, 245 P.2d 684; Swedlund v. Denver Joint Stock Land Bank, 108 Colo. 400, 118 P.2d 460; Ulen v. Knecttle, 50 Wyo. 94, 58 P.2d 446, 111 A.L.R. 565; Encino State Bank v. Tenorio, 28 N.M. 65, 206 P. 698; 19 Am.Jur., Estoppel, § 83. Having been advised that plaintiff had an interest in the logs, it became the duty of defendant to make inquiry as to what that interest was, and defendant was bound to know the facts which such an inquiry would have revealed. Barbour v. Johnson, 201 Or. 375, 269 P.2d 531, 270 P.2d 673; 3 Am.Jur.2d, Agency, § 78; 46 Am.Jur., Sales, § 465. Judgment affirmed.

Under the provisions of this section it becomes necessary to determine as near as may be the amount of the bond during each year that the same was in force. Barbour v. Johnson, 201 Or. 375, 388, 269 P.2d 531, 270 P.2d 673. The judgment against the respondent, including costs, was in the principal amount of $8563.73, and was entered August 5, 1953. Appellant's supersedeas bond was filed on or about September 17, 1953. The appellant concedes that the proper charge is not in excess of $300. Taking into consideration the fact that the judgment bore interest at the rate of six percent per annum and the further fact of a contingent liability for costs in case of an affirmance, we estimate the amount properly chargeable for premiums during the three-year period that has elapsed since the appeal was taken to be $290.

The item claimed in the cost bill is $103.90. The objections thereto are sustained and that item is retaxed at $63.26. Barbour v. Johnson, 201 Or. 375, 270 P.2d 633; ORS 747.100. The cost bill contains an item of $158.00 for the expense of printing the Abstract of Record to which objection is made upon the ground that 46 pages of the Abstract of Record contain matter which had no proper place in the Abstract.

"`[i]t is a fundamental principle of the law of agency that the power of every agent to bind his principal rests upon the authority conferred * * * by that principal. * * * A principal will not be bound by an act of his agent in excess of his actual authority, where the third person has knowledge of the extent of the agent's authority, or where the facts and circumstances of the case * * * put [the third person] upon inquiry as to the authority and good faith of the agent, as where a third person deals with an agent who is acting for himself as well as for his principal in the transaction, as such a person is chargeable with a knowledge of such facts as a proper inquiry as to the agent's powers would have revealed * * *.'"Barbour et al. v. Johnson et al., 201 Or. 375, 383, 269 P.2d 531, modified, 270 P.2d 673 (1954) (quoting Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union et al., 113 Or. 398, 429, 233 P. 547 (1925)). Further, it is "axiomatic that one dealing with an agent cannot hold a principal liable for any act of the agent that does not come within the scope of [the agent's] real or apparent authority."

Portland v. American Surety Co., 79 Or. 38, 43-44, 153 P. 786, 154 P. 121 (1916).See Barbour et al. v. Johnston et al., 201 Or. 375, 269 P.2d 531, 270 P.2d 673 (1954); but see Musulin v. Woodtek, Inc., 260 Or. 576, 491 P.2d 1173 (1971) (notice of lack of inherent authority important only where apparent authority not established). A similar rule applies to implied authority. See DuBois-Matlack Co. v. Davis Lbr. Co., 149 Or. 571, 42 P.2d 152 (1935).