that although the actions of the agent constituted a tort, the agent is not liable to the principal for damages arising from such actions because the agent was acting in accordance with the principal’s instructions); Gutting v. Jacobson, 184 Neb. 402, 167 N.W.2d 762 (1969) (stating that an agent is liable to the principal for violations of the agent’s fiduciary duties, but that a principal may by acquiescence release the agent from such liability); Kidd v. Maldonado, 688 P.2d 461 (Utah 1984) (finding that although the agent completed an earnest money agreement contrary to the principal-seller’s instructions, the seller ratified the agent’s acts when the seller read and signed the agreement); Restatement, supra, § 401, comment d. Cf., Putnam v. DeRosa, 963 F.2d 480 (1st Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Warner v. Reagan Buick, 240 Neb. 668, 483
holding that a declaratory judgment action was not the proper forum for the principal to make its bad faith argument which instead is properly asserted as a defense to the suretys claim against the principal for indemnification holding that a principal does not have an action against his agent for indemnification based on the agents misrepresentations because the principal was not blameless in the misrepresentations made to the third parties holding that plaintiff lacked standing to assert rico claim for mail fraud based on misrepresentations made to third parties holding principal liable to third party for tort of agent despite lack of privity between principal and third party holding a principal liable for its sales agents misrepresentations