The <i>Restatement (Third) of Agency</i> and the unauthorised agent in US law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Contemporary agency law in the United States reflects the dominant influence of a relatively uniform body of common law principles, applied in a context in which statutes and regulatory rules are also significant. Common law agency principles bring intellectual coherence to a legal landscape with potentially disparate features, many stemming from the federal structure of the United States. In six states, basic principles of agency were codified to some extent in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for the most part reflecting then-contemporary common law. Louisiana's current codification of agency, adopted in 1997, draws to some extent on the Quebec Civil Code. Moreover, contemporary applications of common law agency principles often occur in a context in which other statutory material is highly relevant, as is inevitably so when an agent or a principal owes its legal personality to a statute's recognition of a particular type of organisational form, such as a corporation or a limited partnership. The first and second Restatements of Agency have long dominated as statements of the foundational elements of common law agency doctrine in the United States. In part, their influence may be explained by the fact that, after 1914, the subject attracted no comprehensive account in a treatise. Restatement (Third) of Agency , although representing continuity with the earlier Restatements, also departs from their style, structure and substantive formulations in major ways.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".