The idea of an “agency” is that the individual or agency is responsible for its own actions, but the agency relationship can be established with a formal agreement. It is important to understand that an agency relationship can exist without an agency agreement. An agency relationship will not exist in the absence of an agency agreement.
If you think about it, it’s easy to see why this is so. If someone does something that is in their own best interest, then there is no agency relationship. It’s true of the government, as well. That’s why there is a formal agreement between the people who set up an agency relationship. The government doesn’t create the agency relationship, but it does establish the formal agreement.
The problem is, that formal agreement is not an “agency agreement.” In a formal agency agreement, the parties both agree to their relationship and agree to the terms under which they can transact business. In the absence of this agreement the relationship is not “formed.” Its more like a contract.
It is a very difficult problem to solve. The formal agreement comes first. The agency relationship is established later. Both parties have an interest in the outcome and both parties need to have good reason to want the outcome to occur. As a result, there is a great deal of “hype” about why or why not to have an agency relationship. Its really not that hard to find the right reasons to have an agency relationship, but just having the right reasons are not enough.
The problem is the idea that a formal agreement (or an agency relationship) can’t exist without a formal agreement (or an agency relationship). The two most important reasons for creating a formal agreement are because one party has more power and the other party isn’t allowed to do as they please. The other party has more power because they have a higher priority (more important) than the other party (the other party).
In fact, in the case of agency relationships, there are two types of formal agreements. The first is a contract between a party and a third party. The second is an agency agreement. The first is called a contract because the agreement is entered into between two parties who have already been agreed upon to do certain things. The second is an agency because it is something that a third party is allowed to do without having to consent to, much like the legal profession.
If you’ve ever seen someone in a meeting (or even a conference room) and they give you an order in writing, you will know that the person in charge of the meeting is going to have a hand in the decision. It is a person who is trusted to make the final call, which is why it’s always a person in charge. It’s not the person who is supposed to have the final say.
In the absence of an agency, a third party is allowed to perform the task just as a regular person. This is why an agency is never the same as a relationship. In an agency, you are the agent and the third party is the one who has to sign a contract. In a relationship you are the person and the third party is the one that is expected to give you some sort of commitment or promise.
A relationship, for example, is supposed to be a formal agreement that states what a person will and will not do. In a relationship there may be no formal agreement. It could be anything. A contract is only a document that states what you will and will not do and how you will do it. The contract might even be written in legalese, but in the absence of a formal agreement there is no actual contract. The contract is like a contract between the two people.
This is where things get interesting. Contract is a legal term that refers to a formal agreement between two people. Contracts are written documents that give the legal power to do something. In the absence of a contract there is no contract to begin with. What makes a contract is that the two parties have put their names to the document which gives them legal authority to do something.