A principal who enters into a contract that specifically limits the agent’s authority to act still faces the possibility of being bound by acts the agent performs outside that actual authority. This is because of the agent’s apparent authority. Why should the principal bear responsibility to the third party when it was the agent who violated the authority limitation? Would it not be more appropriate for the third party to turn to the agent for compensation for any losses suffered when the agent violates his or her authority? In your discussion consider the matter from the point of view of the principal, the agent, and the third party