Conn. Civ. Jury Instr. 4.4-11

The defendant claims that the apparent authority of <name of agent> to act for the defendant had

terminated before <name of agent> entered into the <specify transaction>, which is the basis of

the plaintiff's claim in this case. The defendant has the burden of proving that the apparent

authority of <name of agent> had terminated.

To prove that the apparent authority of <name of agent> had terminated, the defendant must

prove that the plaintiff had notice that the authority of <name of agent> had terminated or that

the agent was no longer authorized to enter into the <specify transaction>.

The plaintiff had notice that the apparent authority of <name of agent> had been terminated if

the defendant: <charge the following as applicable:>

• delivered oral, written or electronic notice to the plaintiff that the <name of

agent's> authority had been terminated. [Additional charge for written or

electronic notice: For written or electronic notice to be effective, you must find

that it was given to the plaintiff personally or to his place of business or to a

place designated by the plaintiff as one in which business communications are

received or to a place where the defendant reasonably believed the plaintiff

would receive such communications. You must also find that a reasonable time

has elapsed between the delivery of the notice and the <specify transaction>.]

• published notice that <name of agent's> authority had been terminated by some

method reasonably adapted, which could include electronic publication, to give

such information to the plaintiff. You must also find that a reasonable time has

elapsed between the publication of the notice and the <specify transaction>.

If you find that the defendant notified the plaintiff that (he/she/it) had terminated the <name of

agent's> apparent authority to act on (his/her/its) behalf prior to the <specify transaction>, then

you must find that the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.