Now, I try to look at the flaw in it. First, emergency has to be defined case by case and the idea of emergency is totally relative and subjective. Who tells me that, for example, a broken dishwasher is not an emergency? I believe it's not but I also believe that for some people it is and they would try the best to make others believe it. So I see how an agent could consider some situations as emergencies when maybe the principal would not. So the agent is not able to reach the principal and he buys a new expensive dishwasher when the earlier one may just needed some repairs. I believe thar the definition of emergency could create some problems if principal and agent disagree on it. I also see how agents could just act unfair toward the principals but in favor of the customers/buyers. I know it seems I'm trying to think the worst, but I believe these kind of things happen. I'm an agent selling a house and some people is like it and they are interested in it. They like the house but they can't stand the pavement. Renewing the pavement would mean (let's say) $8000 and, as a buyer I don't want to spend those money but maybe I can spend $3000. .
The second rule I want to examine is the agent's duty to notify. In the course of an agency, the agent usually learns information that is important to the principal. The agent has a duty to notify the principal as such information and the duty is called the duty of notify. The agent is then liable to the principal for any injuries resulting from a breach of this duty. According to the rule, the principal is assumed to know what the agent knows. From what I understand, if the agent gets to know something, even about the principal's private life, he is supposed to tell him. I mean, as a principal I would like to know about what my agent knows about me. According to the law, I am supposed to know even if my agent doesn't tell me. I don't think this is so easy and it could create some real problems in a principal-agent relationship.