Similarly, the description of the agent as the „owner“ of goods, for example. B in the context of a rental contract, does not cut the rights of the client on his final ownership of these goods. The purpose of such a statement in the underlying lease agreement is simply to make the customer/lessee understand that the entrepreneur has the best ownership of the goods between him and the contractor. The power of an agent to act for a contracting entity must have existed at the time of the conclusion of the contract. For example, if, with respect to a lease, the seller/broker acted in its own name at the time of commencement and not on behalf of a principal/lessor, the seller/broker cannot assert a posteriori that the agreement was concluded under the aegis of a P&A. This is useful if the contract concerns the property of the client not mentioned, for example. B the sale of a single asset. Here, the agent has no right to manage this asset, except as an agent – nemo dat quod non – so the law must recognize an agency for the contract to be useful to an innocent buyer. The Agency`s undisclosed doctrine may also be excluded if the officer signs a contract entered into in a manner inconsistent with the doctrine. In Drughorn , it was not incompatible for an agent to qualify as a charterer, but in Humble v Hunter (1842), an agent who qualified as an owner was not compatible with the doctrine: there could be no unknown principle. There is resistance to the idea that an agent can work for an unsused client. Tehran-Europe vs. ST Belton (Tractors)  however stated that the doctrine was justified on the basis of commercial comfort.
The doctrine allows principals who would normally be refused as buyers or who would charge exceptionally high prices because of their identity, to use an agent to avoid this problem. A good example would be that a principal owned the whole country in a given territory, but for the third country; the third party would be aware of the value of this land for the client and would inflate its price accordingly. The doctrine follows the idea that identity is not normally essential to a contract, but there are some exceptions. Where an agent enters into a contract on behalf of an unnamed principal, the rights and obligations arising from this contract are between the agent and the third party (the agent shall not withdraw as for the disclosed agency). . . .