Also, can someone explain this to me? This is a question from the first Becker practice exam:
Cox engaged Datz as her agent. It was mutually agreed that Datz would not disclose that he was acting as Cox's agent. Instead he was to deal with prospective customers as if he were a principal acting on his own behalf. This he did, and he made several contracts for Cox. Assuming Cox, Datz, or the customer seeks to avoid liability on one of the contracts involved, which of the following statements is correct?
A) The third party can avoid liability because he believed he was dealing with Datz as the principal.
B) Datz has no liability once he discloses that Cox was the real principal.
C) The third party may choose to hold either Datz or Cox liable.
D) Cox must ratify the Datz contracts in order to be held liable.
The answer is C. I thought that if the agent is working for an undisclosed principal, only the agent can be held liable (EDIT: I'm wrong). If the principal is disclosed, then the third party can hold either the principal or the agent liable (EDIT: Also usually wrong). The answer mentions something about the “principal's identity being discovered by the third party,” but where in the world does that assumption come from?
FAR: May 1st, 2014 - 91
AUD: May 29th, 2014 - 97!
BEC: July 16th, 2014 - 91
REG: August 29th, 2014 - 88
Licensed December 2015
Feel free to add me on LinkedIn by clicking my username!