Reading the "Incidental Authority" rule, I found it very reasonable and useful, especially after I read the example. The rule says that in some cases, the agent possesses certain implied authority (not previously defined) to act beyond his express agency powers. That means that if an emergency situation arises in the course of an agency and the agent cannot contact the principal, the agent takes actions to protect the principal's property and rights. I honestly like this rule a lot, I think it's very fair and ensures great and safe conditions. It's good because this rule seems to obtain the best result. An agent usually has the duty to obey to the principal so he is not allowed to make decisions without the principal's approval. Being the agent (basically) a principal's employee (but having the authority to enter into contracts) this is how it works. Now I think as being a principal, having my own agent representing my good and taking care of it. Let's say my agent is selling one of my cars. While he is selling it, the car gets some brakes problems and loses brakes' power. That is something considerably risky and dangerous in the case the car is sold in those conditions. As a principal, I would never want to have somebody putting me in such uncomfortable situation, making decisions on my behalf that can put others in danger. I would expect common sense from the agent I hired, enough to take decisions in emergency situations even without my approval. And anyway, I (principal) pay and I'm responsible for any decisions made by the agent. Now I know, that it's not just based on common sense, but the law boosts it and protects it. I would say this guarantees optimal situations for everybody (principal, agent and buyer). The principal doesn't have to be always busy with taking care of the good even in emergency situations; the agent makes the best to ensure the best and eventually the buyer is supposed to receive the positive result of all of it.
