A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Guaranty. 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC, agreed to lease a portion of the commercial.

A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Guaranty. 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC,
agreed to lease a portion of the commercial property at 73 Main Avenue,
Norwalk, Connecticut, to PP Door Enterprise, Inc. Nan Zhang, as manager of PP
Door, signed the lease agreement. The lessor required the principal offi cers
of PP Door to execute personal guaranties. In addition, the principal offi cers
agreed to provide the lessor with credit information. Apparently, both the
lessor and the principals of PP Door signed the lease and guaranty agreements
that were sent to PP Doors offi ce. When PP Door failed to make monthly

A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Guaranty. 73-75 Main Avenue, LLC,
agreed to lease a portion of the commercial property at 73 Main Avenue,
Norwalk, Connecticut, to PP Door Enterprise, Inc. Nan Zhang, as manager of PP
Door, signed the lease agreement. The lessor required the principal offi cers
of PP Door to execute personal guaranties. In addition, the principal offi cers
agreed to provide the lessor with credit information. Apparently, both the
lessor and the principals of PP Door signed the lease and guaranty agreements
that were sent to PP Doors offi ce. When PP Door failed to make monthly
payments, 73-75 Main Avenue fi led a suit against PP Door and its owner, Ping
Ying Li. At trial, Li testifi ed that she was the sole owner of PP Door but
denied that Zhang was its manager. She also denied signing the guaranty
agreement. She claimed that she had signed the credit authorization form
because Zhang had told her he was too young to have good credit. Li claimed to
have no knowledge of the lease agreement. She did admit, however, that she had
paid the rent. She claimed that Zhang had been in a car accident and had asked
her to help pay his bills, including the rent at 73 Main Avenue. Li further
testifi ed that she did not see the name PP Door on the storefront of the
leased location. [73-75 Main Avenue, LLC v. PP Door Enterprise, Inc., 120
Conn.App. 150, 991 A.2d 650 (2010)]

(a) Li argued that she was not liable on the lease
agreement because Zhang was not authorized to bind her to the lease. Do the
facts support Li? Why or why not? (b) Li claimed that the guaranty for rent was
not enforceable against her. Why might the court agree?