Party dealing with him without notice in the restriction remains entitled to rely on his evident authority. The difficult case is where A, in finishing a deal that would be inside his normal authority as agent, agreements in his very own name without disclosing the existence of a main, so that the third party assumes he's dealing with a primary. In Watteau v. Fenwick & Co35 the cortege of common authority was held applicable to such a case also.
L owned a hotel. This individual sold it to the defendants, who stored him as manager. The licence continued to be held in his name, which remained over the door. The injured persons supplied lighters to They would, to whom exclusively they offered credit, thinking him as the owner. They had never heard of the defendants, who had forbidden H to buy cigars about credit. After learning which the defendants had been the owners of the hotel the plaintiffs sued these people for the total amount outstanding. The county courtroom judge gave judgment in favour of the injured parties and his decision was upheld by the Divisional Court. Once it is founded that the accused was the real principal, the normal doctrine as to principal and agent can be applied - that the principal is likely for all the functions of the agent which are within the authority generally confided to the agent of this character, notwithstanding limitations, since between the principal and the agent, put after that specialist. It is said it is only so where there has been a holding out of authority which usually cannot be stated where the person supplying the products knew nothing at all of the primary. But I do not think so. Otherwise in every case of undisclosed principal, at least in every case where the simple fact of there being a principal was undisclosed, the secret constraint of expert would prevail and defeat the action of the person dealing with the agent and then discovering that he was a real estate agent and had a principal. 36
Sorrell -v- Finch  two All EMERGENY ROOM 371;  AC 728;...