SUB-AGENT

Sub-agent (Sub-agency) is a real estate term in the United States and Canada
describing the relationship which a real estate broker and his/her agents have with a
buyer of a business, home, or property.A person appointed by an agent to
perform some duty, or the whole of the business relating to his agency.Subagents may be considered in two points of view. 1. With regard to their
rights and duties or obligations, towards their immediate employers. 2. As to
their rights and obligations towards their superior or real principals. A subagent is generally invested with the same rights, and incurs the same
liabilities in regard to his immediate employers, as if he were the sole and
real principal. To this general rule there are some exceptions for example,
where by the general usage of trade or the agreement of the parties, subagents are ordinarily or necessarily employed, to accomplish the ends of the
agency, there, if the agency is avowed, and the credit is exclusively given to
the principal, the intermediate agent may be entirely exempted from all
liability to the sub-agent. The agent, however, will be liable to the sub-agent,
unless such exclusive credit has been given, although the real principal or
superior may also be liable. When the agent employs a sub-agent to do the
whole, or any part of the business of the agency, without the knowledge or
consent of his principal, either express or implied, the latter will only be
entitled to recover from his immediate employer, and his sole responsibility
is also to him. In this case the superior or real principal is not responsible to
the sub-agent, because there is no privity between them. Where by an
express or implied agreement of the parties, or by the usages of trade, a sub-agent
is to be employed, a privity exists between the principal and the sub-agent, and the
latter may justly maintain his claim for compensation, both against the principal
and his immediate employer, unless exclusive credit is given to one of them; and, in
that case, his remedy is limited to that party. Limited subagents cannot sign or bind.
This restriction is not in the law or the regulation; it is a limitation created by the fact that
the subagent has no contract with an insurer.The subagent is limited to personal
lines. The regulation on subagents is below. The law says only an agent can sell, solicit,
or negotiate. This would include a subagent within the meaning of agent, as the subagent
is selling etc on behalf of the agent (not the company).
Limited subagent license
(1) With the scope of authority set forth in Chapter 23 of Title 33 of the Official Code of
Georgia Annotated, a limited subagent license may be issued, limiting the insurance activity
to the following:

(a) Personal lines-property and casualty

(b) Personal insurance-life, accident and sickness.
(2) In order to be eligible for a limited subagent license issued in accordance with Chapter
23 of Title 33 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated and this Regulation, the applicant
must make proper application to the Commissioner and pay all required fees.
(a) The applicant must have a sponsor who is a licensed resident agent. The sponsor shall
affirm that an investigation on the general character of the applicant has been made and
that the sponsor recommends the applicant for a license.
(b) The applicant may not become licensed in a category of insurance not included in the
license of the sponsoring agent.
(c) The applicant shall provide evidence of twenty (20) hours of prelicensing education in
the lines for which he/she seeks licensure. Such evidence shall accompany the application.
Such evidence will only be accepted if the prelicensing course has been taken within twelve
(12) months of application.
(3) No examination shall be required.
(4) The sponsoring agent shall retain the limited subagent license. In the event the
relationship with the limited subagent is terminated, the sponsoring agent shall return the
license to the Commissioner with a request for termination of the limited subagent license.
(5) Each year by the dates specified in Rule 120-2-3-.16, license renewals, and evidence of
at least five (5) hours of continuing education must be filed each year on forms specified by
the Commissioner and accompanied by the required fees.
(6) The limited subagent certificate of authority must be renewed annually in conjunction
with the limited subagent license renewal.
(7) The termination, cancellation, or nonrenewal of the sponsoring agent's license will result
in the cancellation of the limited subagent license. SUBAGENT. A person appointed by an agent to perform some duty, or the whole of the business relating to hi
s agency.
2. Sub-agents may be considered in two points of view. 1. With regard to their rights and duties or obli
gations, towards their immediateemployers. 2. As to their rights and obligations towards their superior or r
eal principals.
1. A subagent is generally invested with the same rights, and incurs the same liabilities in regard to his im
mediate employers, as if hewere the sole and real principal. To this general rule there are some exception
s for example, where by the general usage of trade or theagreement of the parties, sub-agents are ordina
rily or necessarily employed, to accomplish the ends of the agency, there, if the agency isavowed, and the
credit is exclusively given to the principal, the intermediate agent may be entirely exempted from all liabilit
y to the sub-agent. The agent, however, will be liable to the sub-agent, unless such exclusive credit has b
een given, although the real principal or superiormay also be liable. Story on Ag. Sec. 386; Paley on Ag. b
y Lloyd, 49. When the agent employs a sub-agent to do the whole, or any part ofthe business of the agen
cy, without the knowledge or consent of his principal, either express or implied, the latter will only be entitl
ed torecover from his immediate employer, and his sole responsibility is also to him. In this case the super
ior or real principal is not responsible tothe sub-agent, because there is no privity between them. Story on
Ag. Sec. 13, 14, 15, 217, 387.
4.-2. Where by an express or implied agreement of the parties, or by the usages of trade, a sub-agent
is to be employed, a privity existsbetween the principal and the sub-agent, and the latter may justly maint
ain his claim for compensation, both against the principal and hisimmediate employer, unless exclusive cr
edit is given to one of them; and, in that case, his remedy is limited to that party.

AGENT
a person who does business for another person : a person who acts on behalf of another
: a person who tries to get secret information about another country, government, etc.
: a person or thing that causes something to happen
1
: one that acts or exerts power
2
a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause
b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle
3
: a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result
4
: one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as
a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government <crown agent> <federal agent>
b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : SPY <secret agent>
c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) <a theatrical agent>
5
: a computer application designed to automate certain tasks

Origin of AGENT
Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive,
lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead
First Known Use: 15th century

Party that has express (oral or written) or implied authority to act for another (the
principal) so as to bring the principal into contractual relationships with
other parties. An agent is under the control (is obligated to) the principal, and
(when acting within the scope of authority delegated by the principal) binds the
principal with his or her acts. Additional powers are assigned to agent under
the legal concept of 'apparent authority.' The agent, however, does not have title to
the principal's goods in his or her possession, except where agent's lien is

applicable. In general, advertising agencies do not fall under this definition of an

agent, because they act as principals for the services they buy on behalf
of their clients. See also general agent, special agent, and universal agent.

An individual or firm authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal), such as by
executing a transaction or selling and servicing an insurance policy. The agent does not
assume any financial risk in the transaction, as a dealer would.
a person who is authorized to act for another (the agent's principal) through employment, by contract or a
pparent authority. The importanceis that the agent can bind the principal by contract or create liability if he
/she causes injury while in the scope of the agency. Who is in agentand what is his/her authority or often
difficult and crucial factual issues

One who represents and acts for another under the contract or relation of agency, q.
v. Classification. Agents are either general or special. A general agent is one employed in his
capacity as a professional man or master of an art or trade, or one to whom the principal
confides his whole business or all transactions or functions of a designated class; or he is a
person who is authorized by his principal to execute all deeds, sign all contracts, or purchase all
goods, required in a particular trade, business, or employment
Definition of BUSINESS AGENT. : one that handles business affairs for another; especially : a
paid official of a union local who administers union business with its members and with the
employer.
Definition: An agent is a person who represents an insurance firm and sells insurance policies on
its behalf.
Description: Generally, there are two types of such agents who reach the prospective parties that
may be interested in buying insurance. These are independent agents and captive or exclusive
agents.
Independent agents may represent many insurance firms and receive commission for their services
accordingly. On the other hand, there are captive agents who are exclusively employed by a
particular insurance firm and sell policies of the same. Their services can be rewarded in the form of
salary or commission.

Judicial interpretation

Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how

the judiciary should interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents and legislation
Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the judiciary should
interpret the law, particularlyconstitutional documents and legislation (see statutory interpretation).

An interpretation which results in or supports some form of law-making role for the judiciary in
interpreting the law is sometimes pejoratively characterized as judicial activism, the opposite of
which is judicial lethargy, with judicial restraint somewhere in between
Judicial interpretation refers to how a judge interprets laws. Different judges interpret the laws of
their state or the country in different ways. Some judges are said to interpret laws in ways that
cannot be sustained by the plain meaning of the law; at other times, some judges are said to
"legislate from the bench". These judicial behaviors are sometimes referred to as judicial activism,
which is contrasted to judicial restraint as a way of interpreting both what laws say and how much
freedom judges have to create new laws from the bench.
Judicial Interpretation is a mode or technique that explains how the judiciary should interpret the law,
specifically constitutional documents and legislation. There are several approaches to this, including
these: the structuralist approach, doctrinalist approach, developmentalist approach, textualist
approach, contextualist approach, and the originalist approach.

Common law is comprised of the guidelines that are set forth from case law rather than actual
legislature. Such case law represents all previous decisions made by judges according to the
cases that came before them, which then act as a basis for judicial interpretation.

Such interpretation constitutes how exactly courts provide their interpretation of the law
as we see by way of the constitution as well as other areas of legislation.
Despite the existence of statutes, we usually put most of the responsibility upon our
judicial system in terms of such interpretation due to the fact that we may have varying
opinions on such statutes. Such an example would be that of a child custody suit.
As the parties involved may be aware of, statutes exist stating that custody should be
provided or conveyed with the "best interests" of the minor at the forefront of all
considerations. This statement, though well and good, may be interpreted differently
depending upon which side you listen to, however.
The mother, for instance, may believe that these "best interests" exist with her as the
sole guardian as opposed to only a part time visitor. The specific way in which the judge
may go about attaining case law, which will then lead to such a judicial interpretation is
as follows. Judges will first seek out the law appropriate to the case at hand.
Afterward, they will usually compose some sort of document or form, which contains
their own summary regarding their logic as concerning the law, also known as their legal
"opinion." Such "judicial opinions" are what create the foundation for "common law."
This, then, is how the judge decides the law must operate in connection to the case they
are currently presiding over. In such a circumstance, the judge must also look to

precedence in terms of the rulings of judges that presided over similar cases before
them in order to provide adequate judicial interpretations.
There does exist, however, a "hierarchy" of judges, so that not every judge is strictly
subject to the precedence of another.
In terms of judicial interpretation of the constitution, there are a number of preordained
approaches that must be followed. These include the "contextualist," "developmentalist,"
"doctrinalist," "originalist," "structuralist," and the "textualist/strict constructionist."
The contextualist approach deals mostly with the original conception and point of the
text provided, such as why it resides where it does in the document and the history
behind its advent as well as the intentions as well.
Developmentalists focus upon the step-by-step creation that has gone into a judicial
document such as those of its evolution. A doctrinalist looks to precedence, such as
that which is explained in terms of judge's judicial interpretation of case law.
Originalists, however, attempt to embody the mentalities of the "founding fathers," as
they look to comprehend their intentions and methods of understanding. The
structuralist approach look to the management of the authority of offices within the
constitution.
The last approach used in judicial interpretation of the constitution is that of the
textualist/strict constructionist approach, where the interpretation focuses upon the
intended "literal meaning" behind such texts.
Example:For example, one main proponent of historical contextualism, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, used the
broad historical context of the Fourth Amendment to determine in Olmstead v. United States that
wiretapping was not subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant restrictions because it was not a
"physical" intrusion. Notably, however, this same instance shows some of the drawbacks of contextualism:
in Katz v. United States, a developmentalist outlook, using evolving standards of decency, determined that
the Fourth Amendment ought to protect people and not just physical places, and so wiretapping should be
subject to the Fourth Amendment's warrant restrictions, too. Opponents of historical contextualism, then,
often argue that a purely contextualist outlook prohibits the Constitution from adapting to different cultural,
technological, and social developments. Contextualists counter this criticism by pointing to Article Five of
the United States Constitution, in which the Framers provided a means for amending the Constitution so
as to suit the needs of the times.

The structuralist approach proposes to decide hard cases by looking for guidance in the Constitution's
general arrangement of offices and powers. In so doing, it is related to facial contextualism. That general
arrangement might be characterized as a form of democracy or representative, deliberative, or
constitutionalist government. This approach differs from textualism or strict constructionism because it
notes that none of the Constitution's principal structural ideas, such as separation of powers, checks and
balances, federalism, democracy, or fundamental rights, is expressly mentioned in the text. Proponents of
structuralism explain and justify their decisions by advancing claims about the proper understanding of
constitutional structure. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase advanced such claims when examining in Texas v.
White what deference ought to be given to decisions of Confederate states' courts once the American
Civil War was over. Chief Justice John Marshall also advanced a structuralist outlook when discussing his
conception of federal-state relations in McCulloch v. Maryland. Still, structuralism lends itself to opposition
which argues that it is too subjective, without any formal basis for making its claims because it lacks
textual, contextual, or historical support.

Fundamental to our structure of government are the 3 branches of government and the doctrine
of separation of powers. The legislative branch creates law, the executive branch enforces the
law, and the judicial branch applies, and is often called upon to interpret, the law. I offer the
following example to illustrate what judicial interpretation looks like (I use a California example
but this principle is universally applicable):
California Vehicle Code 23152(a) - It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of
any alcoholic beverage or drug to drive a vehicle.
This law seems fairly straight forward but there are some ambiguities. For instance, what does it
actually mean to drive a vehicle? We might all agree that driving certainly includes someone
operating their vehicle while it is moving upon a roadway. However, if the legislature neglects to
define to drive the courts will be called upon to interpret this phrase.
Through judicial interpretation the California courts have defined the phrase to drive as, where
a person actively asserts control over a vehicle and takes every step necessary to resume travel
along a public road. This definition of to drive may now be used across the state. Officers may
rely on it, attorneys will cite it, juries may be instructed by it, and courts will follow it. It is law to
an equal degree as if it were law passed by the legislature.