Bge Acn Agreement

12 septembre 2021

The applicants` argument that ACN and Xoom Energy should be held liable according to a theory of apparent authority is also erroneous. « To support the finding of apparent authority, Maryland and New Jersey law requires that evidence that the principal`s conduct gave the impression of being the agent`s authority, which makes a third party reasonably rely on that representation. » Ziemkiewicz v. R+L Carriers, Inc., 996 F. Supp. 2d 378, 401 (D. Md. 2014). In that regard, the applicants did not assert that they had relied on an assurance that they had entered into an agreement with ACN or XOOM Energy. On the contrary, the picture drawn up by the applicants is one in which the applicants did not know with which undertaking they were concluding a contract and instead relied exclusively on promises of better prices and their relations with the various IBOs. The plaintiffs` agency`s argument thus fails. The action brought by the applicant Donnellon against XOOM Maryland survives the defendant`s application for dismissal. All other infringement claims are rejected by prejudice. From time to time, ACN may also pass on your personal data to third parties for the purposes of this Privacy Policy and in accordance with applicable law.

ACN only provides personal data to third parties if the third party has provided satisfactory assurances: (a) that it will protect the personal data in accordance with this Privacy Policy; (b) has signed an agreement with ACN regarding the transmission and management of personal data; or (c) is located in the European Union or any other country where transmission is permitted by the General Data Protection Regulation or other applicable laws, the defendants conten that « the notion of `oral` energy supply contract. It is totally incomplete. ECF No. 59-1 to 11. To help them, they cite state rules in Maryland and New Jersey that claim to require energy suppliers to provide written contracts to customers. Md Code Regs. 20.53.07.08 (B)- (C) (« supplier contracts »); == administrator. Code 14:4-7.6. But while it may seem difficult to imagine an energy supply treaty that could actually be proposed and accepted without being reduced to a single writing, it does not reach the level of non-plausibility in the context of the SAC`s reproaches. In fact, the whole premise of the case seems to be the idea that ibOs have made a fairly simplified offer to the applicants: they would supply energy at more advantageous prices than the applicants` current suppliers if the applicants changed suppliers. And the catalogue of customer complaints contained in the SAC is supported for the idea that the defendants have indeed entered into oral agreements, see ECF n°.

. . .