Locke and Vorst were general partners in a kitchen equipment business. On behalf of the partnership, Locke contracted to purchase 15 stoves from Gage. Unknown to Gage, Locke was not authorized by the partnership agreement to make such contracts. Vorst refused to allow the partnership to accept delivery of the stoves, and Gage sought to enforce the contract. Gage will .

Gage would Win, since Locke had apparent authority to bind the partnership.

Explanation:

Clearly Gage would win this case. It has been written here in the question that the two people in the business partnership are Locke and vorst. Gage was only contracted to make supply of the stoves. So he does not have any prior knowledge of an agreement neither has he gone off course with an agreement with either of these two.

answer; clear and present danger test;