Harvestons asserted that narnia's service was invalid, in part, because "the return of service states that process was delivered to 'joann kocerek'" and did not show that she "had the authority to accept process on behalf of harvestons or the texas securities commissioner." should such a detail, if it is required, be strictly construed and applied? should it apply in this case? explain.

Question

Abel Day

Business

10 November, 05:45

Harvestons asserted that narnia's service was invalid, in part, because "the return of service states that process was delivered to 'joann kocerek'" and did not show that she "had the authority to accept process on behalf of harvestons or the texas securities commissioner." should such a detail, if it is required, be strictly construed and applied? should it apply in this case? explain.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Ellen Perkins · Answer 1

Harvestons contends that service of process was defective because the return did not show that the person served-JoAnn Kocerek-had the authority to accept process on behalf of Harvestons or the Texas Securities Commissioner.

Yes, I believe that such a detail should be construed and applied as in many cases the counter parties, if they do not have the necessary permissions to perform a task and if they perform it then they can be in troubles.

Yes, the detailed l information should apply in this case,

In future I believe that it is the responsibility of Narnia to see that service of process is accomplished properly. And it was not properly accomplished as JoAnn Kocerek did not have the authority to accept process on behalf of anyone.