澳洲论文代写：房地产交易
澳洲论文代写：房地产交易
Sam和Agnes之间的代理关系可以称为房地产交易。在这种情况下，合同所涉及的原则是买方和卖方，涉及的经纪人是代理人。在这种情况下，山姆和布鲁斯是原则，Agnes是代理人。 Agnes和Sam之间的这种关系本质上是受信的。
作为案件的代理人，Agnes有责任将其房屋出售金额不低于80万美元。此外，山姆说，这所房子不是一个泄漏的家。不过，根据条款，Agnes设法以850000美元的价格出售房屋。后来发现房子是一个泄漏的家。
根据合同有关规定，代理人按照实际授权范围行事，代理人的赔偿必须由委托人在法定代理关系期间支付，对促进本金业务的业务（UCB Corporate Services Ltd. v Williams。，2012）已经表示或基本需要支出授权。因此，在这种情况下，阿格尼丝根据实际权力进行表演;因此，她可以据此索赔。
根据法律规定，代理人具有明显或实际的权力，代理人不对在此类权限范围内的行为履行责任。只要公开身份身份以及机构之间的法律关系已经完成（UCB Corporate Services Ltd. v Williams，2012），这可以做到。如果该机构没有被完全或部分披露，委托人和代理人将承担责任。
因此，根据所提供的情况，Agnes和Sam将根据法律承担责任，Bruce可以采取行动，作为Sam的身份，该机构在他面前没有被披露。
澳洲论文代写：房地产交易
The agency relationship between Sam and Agnes can be referred to as a real estate transaction. In such a case, the principles involved in the contract are buyers and sellers and the broker involved is an agent. As in this case, Sam and Bruce are the principles and Agnes is the agent. This relationship between Agnes and Sam is fiduciary in nature.
Agnes, who is the agent in the case, was given the responsibility to sell his house for an amount of not less than $800000. Also, Sam stated that the house was not a leaky home. However, as per the terms, Agnes managed to sell the house for $850000. Later on, it was found that the house was a leaky home.
According to the relevant section of the contract act, if the agent has acted as per the scope of actual authority that has been provided, indemnification of the agent has to be done by the principal to make payment in the duration of the legal agency relationship whether the authorization of expenditure has been expressed or basically necessary for the promotion of business of the principal (UCB Corporate Services Ltd. v Williams., 2012). Therefore, in such a case, Agnes had been performing as per the actual authority; hence, she can claim her payment accordingly.
As per law, if the agent possesses apparent or actual authority, the agent will not be held liable for performance of acts in the scope of this type of authority. This can be done as long as the disclosure of the identity of principal as well as the legal relationship between agencies has been done (UCB Corporate Services Ltd. v Williams., 2012). In case the agency has not been disclosed completely or partially, both the principal and agent will be held liable.
Therefore, as per the case provided, Agnes and Sam both will be held liable under law and Bruce can take action against both as the identity of Sam and the agency had not been disclosed in front of him.
