In other words, the unmentioned client still has the right to intervene and assume his or her own rights and obligations arising from the contract with the client. The fact that the underlying contract was entered into without indicating the existence or authority of the client is negligible. In order to avoid personal liability, disclosure of the client must also take place at the time of the conclusion of the contract. The agent or the adjudicating entity is responsible by other means. However, after the disclosure of the contracting entity, the agent is not held responsible for the acts authorized after the fact between the third party and the adjudicating entity. However, in the context of an A.P.A., the agent is a person who, under the particular jurisdiction conferred on him, can create legal rights and obligations between a party designated as the client and the client who is not related to one of the two. If identity is essential to a contract, the doctrine of the undisclosed principle is not permitted. A good example of this would be to buy a painting from a popular artist: you would expect the artist to have painted the painting, not an unexplored principle of the artist (who probably could not paint to save his life). Said v Butt (1920) challenged the doctrine to prohibit a film critic from having a ticket to the opening night of a show (The Whirligig) where the host of the show did not want him to be present.
Although rooted in potentially outdated cultural traditions, the case has not been quashed. In Dyster v Randall (1926), it was found that the identity of a land buyer was not essential to the estate contract concluded. In general, an agent is a person who introduces parties who wish to do business. The introduction of these parts does not bind them in any way to the transaction. On the other hand, within the framework of a P-A structure, the agent has a competence conferred on him by the agreement to establish legal relations between his client and a potential client. An agent is a third of the intermediary and a third party, so it would generally be said that a third party should use the law of the unlawful act and proof of fraud to prosecute the agent. However, the law of the agency, when the contract is concluded by this agent, imposes an ancillary contract between the representative and the third. This contract guarantees to the third party that the agent is entitled to enter into this contract and can be sued under contract law if he does not have the real or obvious power required. This means that the third party will be placed in the same financial position as if the contract had been executed. Even if a taker can enter into a lease agreement on the grounds that the party with whom he enters into a contract is the lessor itself, the validity of the lease is not affected by the fact that the lease was not the true owner of the leased property, if the required P-A was present. The law itself, which can be traced back to the reign of Lord Tenterde de Thompson v Davenport in 1829, but ultimately formalized somewhat differently from Parke B to Heald v Kenworthy in 1855, suggests that there is an agency relationship, but if it is not revealed at all, the counterparty may sue the agent or (if his identity appears later) the sponsor. For the agent/seller, a P-A mechanism should finance the GST component of the sale price of the equipment on an all-up basis.
Again, the allocation or collateral of the underlying cash flows of the lease will not result in this type of benefit. In the absence of an ARP, the seller would be required to allocate working capital to settle the date of applicable tax payments. The legal effect of a P-A sometimes seems ambiguous, as commercial practice often gives the word “agent” a different meaning from what the law considers an “agent.” Thus, the lenders and borrowers/tenants are directly and totally linked to each other by the technique of the P-A contract in the tenancy agreement, as if each had directly signed a contract with the other.
