Here are the possible “undisclosed agency” scenarios at the time of conclusion of the contract: similarly, an agent is held liable if he does not disclose the agency and the identity of the client at the time of conclusion of the contract. In this case, the agent is subject to all the commitments created by the contract, in the same way as if the agent were the main interest rate. If a third party owes money to the payer or is owed by the payer, can the payment to the agent fulfill the payment obligation? If the agency is disclosed, an agent according to Irvine v Watson (1880) should only be paid by a third party if the principal has given the agent the authority to obtain such payment. Or if the agent does not transmit the payment, the “paying” party remains responsible for the payment. In Armstrong v Stokes (1872), it was said that an unsused principal was not liable to a third party after paying his agent when the agent fled with the money. This was questioned by Irvine v Watson (1880), who stated that it was very rare to deny a third party rights against a principal, which seems to be the most logical approach given that an agent is controlled by his sponsor. The flexibility of the law with regard to its rules relating to the Agency allows for a derogation from the fundamental legal principle of “legal effect”; In other words, the parties cannot delegate rights or obligations with respect to the treaty to anyone other than themselves. A P&A allows a party such as a broker (but often a supplier of goods or a “seller”) to create legal relationships (e.g.B. a lease agreement) that connect a third-party financier to the end customer.