overturn it under any circumstances; rather, any judgment overturning it must be rejected. If, however, he was unaware of this, or his position is not to uphold validity if the dismissal is established, his judgment has no legal effect.

Likewise, if the second judge was unaware that the dismissal preceded notification, or knew this but does not consider such a dismissal effective, or considers it effective but does not hold that the earlier judgment may be overturned, his judgment has no legal effect.

The principal’s reported knowledge of what his selling agent had done and his silence, the securing of a judicial ruling in the case, and his receipt of the price from the agent ordinarily indicate authorization to buy and sell and the continuation of the agency, unless outweighed by stronger evidence to the contrary. Most scholars accept evidence of this kind and use it to reject the principal’s claim that he dismissed the agent, made in order to invalidate the sale—especially given the prevalence of false witnesses.

Even if the endowment were ruled invalid, neither the agent nor the buyer would be liable to compensate for any use enjoyed. If the agent and buyer were misled by the principal through his failure to give notice of the dismissal, the negligence was on his part, and no compensation for that use is owed to him.

If the principal denies receiving the price and no evidence is produced against him establishing receipt, then, if the agent acted without remuneration, his word is accepted against the principal, because he was entrusted by him—just as a depositary’s word is accepted concerning the return of a deposit to its owner. If he acted for remuneration, scholars hold two well-known views on the matter. The agent’s word, however, is not accepted against the buyer. If the sale remains in force,