Opinion ID: 6496286
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Undisclosed Principal Status

Text: Knapke’s status as a possible undisclosed principal does not alone determine whether she is bound by Reilly’s agreement. Under Washington law, “where an agent on behalf of his principal enters into a simple contract as though made for himself, and the existence of the principal is not KNAPKE V. PEOPLECONNECT 19 disclosed, the contract inures to the benefit of the principal who may appear and hold the other party to the contract made by the agent.” Dana v. Boren, 135 P.3d 963, 965 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Columbia Sec. Co. v. Aetna Accident & Liab. Co., 183 P. 137, 141 (Wash. 1919)). If the principal “appear[s] and claim[s] the benefit of the contract,” then the contract “becomes [her] own to the same extent as if [her] name had originally appeared as a contracting party.” Id. (quoting Columbia, 183 P. at 141). Knapke argues that Reilly did not intend to agree to the Terms of Service on her behalf, and so as an undisclosed principal, she is not bound. But “[a]n undisclosed principal only becomes a party to a contract when an agent acts on the principal’s behalf in making the contract. Thus, an undisclosed principal does not become a party to a contract when the agent does not intend to act for the principal.” Restatement (Third) of Agency § 6.03 cmt. c (2006). Cf. Kim v. Moffett, 234 P.3d 279, 284 n.10 & 287 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (citing § 6.03 cmts. d & e when assessing Washington law). The question is thus whether Reilly acted on Knapke’s behalf in agreeing to the Classmates.com Terms of Service, not, as Knapke argues, whether Reilly intended to bind her. Further factual development is necessary to answer this question.