In Canyon Contracting Co. v. Tohono O'Odham Hous. Auth., 172 Ariz. 389, 390, 837 P.2d 750, 751 (App. 1992), the Court applied these principles to determine whether an alleged settlement was enforceable. In that case, an attorney and principal appeared together at a settlement conference, but the parties later disputed whether a settlement was reached, and the correspondence after the conference supported conflicting inferences about the existence of the alleged settlement agreement. 172 Ariz. at 392, 837 P.2d at 753. Based on those facts, the Court concluded "nothing in the record presently before us compels a finding that the attorney had apparent authority to settle the case or that the third party reasonably relied upon such authority." Id. Additionally, the Court concluded "reasonable minds could differ regarding the effect of the principal's mere presence at that settlement conference and his subsequent failure to notify the third party directly that he had rejected the proposed terms." Id. The Court therefore found the effective grant of summary judgment on the issue inappropriate and reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 393, 837 P.2d at 754.