was an agent acting within the scope of its authority. “Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.” Raney v. Aware Woman Center for Choice, Inc., 224 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Agency § 1(1) (1958)). Both the principal and the agent must consent to the agency; a mere association is insufficient. “[T]he person sought to be charged as a master [must have] ‘the right or power to control and direct the physical conduct of the other in the performance of the act.’ If there is no right to control, there is no liability.” Wilson v. United States, 989 F.2d 953, 958-59 (8th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). Haynes utterly fails to present evidence of
holding that a boy scout tribal council incurred no liability for the tort of a troop leader because the tribal council neither consented to control nor actually controlled the actions of the troop leader holding that acoma tribal law was the law of the place because the tribal court could have jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim holding that a tribal housing authority established by tribal council pursuant to its powers of selfgovernment was a tribal agency rather than a separate corporate entity created by the tribe holding that disputes involving questions of interpretation of a tribal constitution and tribal law is not within the jurisdiction of the district court holding that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to interpret a tribal constitution or tribal laws