【正文】 ples apply to his acts. Sons of Norway v. Boomer, 10 Wn. App. 618, 519 28 (1974). VendAWin, therefore, may be bound to a contract made by Treece if the contract was within the scope of his apparent authority as a corporate vicepresident. Lumber Mart Co. v. Buchanan, 69 658, 419 1002 (1966) 。 Taylor v. Smith, 13 Wn. App. 171, 534 P. 2d 39 (1975) 。 Deers, Inc. v. DeRuyter, 9 Wn. App. 240, 511 1379 (1973). Vicepresidents do not have authority to bind their corporations by virtue of their office. H. Henn, Law of Corporations 167。 225 (2d ed. 1970). Apparent authority to bind a corporation in contract exists only if the corporation, as the principal, knowingly permits the agent to act or holds the agent out as having authority. Ford v. United Bhd. of Carpenters, 50 Wn. 2d 832, 315 P. 2 d 299 (1957). In order for a corporation to be bound by the apparent authority of its officers, it must have acted or conducted itself in a manner that manifested to third persons that the agent had authority. Lumber Mart Co. v. Buchanan, supra. To constitute a manifestation of an agent39。s apparent authority by the principal, the circumstances must be such that a prudent person would have believed that the agent possessed the authority to do the particular act in question. Walker v. Pacific Mobile Homes, Inc. , 68 Wn. 2d 347, 413 P. 2d 3 (1966). The manifestation must be sufficient to mislead a reasonable person , to deter further inquiry, and to cause reliance on the manifestation of apparent authority. Lamb v. General Associates, Inc. , 60 Wn. 2d 623, 374 677 (1962)。 Taylor v. Smith, supra。 Deers, Inc. v. DeRuyter, supra.Holding(s)The holding of a case is the court’s direct response to the issue in controversy presented before the court. It is the part of the opinion that is binding. As discussed earlier, the holding of a case is also called the ratio decidendi. The doctrine of stare decisis requires the ratio decidendi of a precedent be followed by the courts in deciding similar cases. Therefore, the holding is the most important part of an opinion. The court may explicitly or impliedly state the holding in the opinion. Sometimes the court itself will expressly and clearly announce its holding. However, as in issuespotting, sometimes the holding is implicit rather than explicit。 or, the explicit holding by the court is not precise or correct. In these situations, you must extricate the holding from the case. For example, the court may make a number of legal statements which seem to be the holding of the case. However, if they do not relate to the issue actually presented before it, they are but dicta instead of holding. Locating the holding of a case is also important for you to find the issue of the case and the reasons behind the court39。s decision. If there is more than one issue raised in the case, there should be more than one holding.After you identify the holding of an opinion, you must formulate it. The way of formulating holdings is similar to that of formulating issues. Since the holding provides the answer to the question, thus the structure of a holding is much similar to that of an issue. The holding is usually one declarative sentence which identifies the legally relevant facts, the cause of action, and the particular elements of the rules of law that the court applied to the facts in order to resolve the dispute. The defendant is liable for breach of contract is not a correct statement of a holding because it does not contain any facts of the case. A holding is not a pure legal conclusion either. A did tell the public that he would pay to anyone who presented the qualified product is not a correct statement of a holding because it is purely factual. The correct statement of a holding should be: A39。s statement made before the public in which he promised to pay a certain amount of money to anyone who presented the qualified product constituted an offer, which created power in the offeree to accept it and, upon its acceptance, a binding contract was formed. Please read another part of the case Barnes v. Treece and try to formulate the holding of it.Barnes v. Treece549 P. 2d 1152 (Wash. App. Ct. 1976) When expressions are intended as a joke and are understood or would be understood by a reasonable person as being so intended, they cannot be construed as an offer and accepted to form a contract. However, if the jest is not apparent and a reasonable hearer would believe that an offer was being made, then the speaker risks the formation of a contract which was not intended. It is the objective manifestations of the offerer that count and not secret, unexpressed intentions. 1 A. Corbin, Corbin on Contracts 167。34 (1963) 。 1 S. Williston, A Treatise on thf Law of Contracts 167。 21, at 43 (3d ed. 1957). As stated in Wesco Realty, Inc. v. Drewry, 9 Wn. App. 734, 735, 515 (1973):If a party39。s words or acts, judged by a reasonable standard, manifest an intention to agree in regard to the matter in question, that agreement is established, and it is immaterial what may be the real but unexpressed state of the party39。s mind on the subject.See also Swanson v. Holmquist, 13 Wn. App. 939, 539 104 (1975) 。 Peoples Mortgage Co. v. Vista View Bidrs. , 6 Wn. App. 744, 496 P. 2d 354 (1972).The trial court found that there was an objective manifestation of mutual assent to form a contract. This was a matter to be evaluated by the trier of fact. In re Estate of Richardson, 11 Wn. App. 758, 525 816 (1974). The record includes substantial evidence of the required mutual assent to support the finding of the trial court. Although the original statement of Treece drew laughter from the audience, the subsequent statements, conduct, and the circumstances show an intent to lead any hearer to believe the statements were made seriously. There was testimony, though contradicted, that Treece specifically restated the offer over the telephone in response to an inquiry conc