“,[t]he vital test in determining whether an agency relationship exists is to be found in the fact that the employer has or has not retained the right of control or superintendence over the contractor or employee as to details.” Id. at 636, 532 S.E.2d at 257 (internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, “ ‘the principal must have the right to control both the means and the details of the process by which the agent is to accomplish his task in order for an agency relationship to exist.’ ” Wyatt v. Walt Disney World Co., 151 N.C. App. 158, 166, 565 S.E.2d 705, 710 (2002) (emphasis added) (quoting Williamson v. Petrosakh Joint Stock Co. of the Closed Type, 952 F. Supp. 495, 498 (S.D. Tex. 1997)). See also Hoffman v. Moore Reg’l Hosp., Inc., 114 N.C. App. 248, 251, 441 S.E.2d 567, 569 (<HOLDING>), disc. review denied, 336 N.C. 605, 447 S.E.2d
holding that the principal must have control and supervision over the details of the agents work 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 a principal liable for its sales agents misrepresentations recognizing that enhancement requires control over a participant in the scheme not only control over the scheme itself holding that the principal is liable for an agents acts committed within the scope of the agents employment