In the context of agency law, who typically bears the risk of an agent's frolic?

In agency law, the principle of "frolic" refers to a situation where an agent departs from the scope of their agency to engage in personal activities, effectively acting outside the bounds of their authority. When an agent engages in a frolic, they are acting on their own and not in pursuit of the principal's interests. Therefore, the risk and liability associated with the agent's actions during this period fall squarely on the agent.

The rationale is that since the agent is not performing duties for the principal while on a frolic, the principal cannot be held liable for any acts or omissions of the agent during this unauthorized activity. This aligns with the general framework under which liability is assigned in agency relationships, emphasizing that the principal is responsible for the agent's conduct only when the agent is acting within the scope of their authority or in furtherance of the principal's objectives.

This understanding helps clarify the limits of agency liability and the conditions under which a principal might be held accountable for the actions of their agent, particularly highlighting the distinction between acts performed within authorized responsibilities and those that clearly denote a personal deviation.