on the corruption of the [bribee’s] employee[s]; on the other side .. is that the [briber] hoped and expected to benefit by more than the sum of the bribes.” ... [S]o long as double recovery is not awarded for the bribes, the aider and abettor who is a joint tortfeasor with the agent is “jointly liable to the principal for the agent’s secret profits.” [Ibid, (quoting Continental Mgmt., supra, 527 F.2d at 617-19).] These decisions recognize the general rule reported in Restatement (Second) of Agency § 312, that “[a] person who ... intentionally causes or assists an agent to violate a duty to his principal is subject to liability to the principal.” See also 3 AmJur. 2d Agency §§ 287-89 (2003 Supp.) (same principle); Hirsch v. Schwartz, 87 N.J.Super. 382, 390, 209 A.2d 635 (App.Div.1965) (<HOLDING>). Restatement (Second) of Agency § 312 does not
holding defendant assumed risk that third party would consent to search of storage locker where defendant instructed third party to rent locker under third partys name and allowed third party to keep possession of lease papers and to occasionally retain the keys recognizing that a forum selection clause also applies to a nonsignatory third party where the third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract recognizing applicability of  312 in the instance of an agents divulgence of confidential information to a third party at the third partys behest holding that a third party has authority to consent to a search if the third party is a coinhabitant holding that where a third partys conduct is closely related to the contractual relationship or the contractual dispute and where the third party enjoys financial benefit from the contract the forum selection clause applies to the third party