Originally Posted by
OssianBlue
Thank you, -- now we're getting somewhere. Did you read the text, or just search for the highlighted words? If you read the text at your link to the Smith and Roberson book, you would have seen this:
All employees are agents, even those employees not authorized to contract on behalf of the employer or otherwise to conduct business with third parties. Thus, an assembly-line worker in a factory is an agent of the company employing her ... but she does not have the right to bind the principal in contracts with third parties.
The point we've been discussing, of course, is not a theoretical, academic discussion of the legal doctrine of agency, it's whether or not what a CSR tells you is of any consequence and creates an obligation on the part of Marriott, the CSR's employer.
Or, put slightly differently, it doesn't matter whether or not the CSR is an "agent" of Marriott. What matters is whether or not a CSR's statements create a legal, enforceable obligation for Marriott. As you can see from the source you quoted, they do not.