1. Thomas Turcott was acting as an agent of Dolores Mendez when Mendez instructed Turcott to purchase a quantity of fur products for her. Turcott ordered the fur from Teodore Thompkin Fur Co in his own name. The fur products were delivered to Mendez. When Thompkin discovered that Mendez was the principal, he sent the bill to Mendez who refused to pay. Thompkin sued both Turcott and Mendez. What are Tompkin's rights against Turcott and Mendez? Please explain. Thompkin has the right to sue either Turkott or Mendez for the price, but not both. Upon learning of the undiscovered principal, Thompkin has the option of treating Turcott as the agent and holding the principal, or ignoring Turcott and holding the principal with Mendez, with whom she contracted Thompkin. Here, Dolores Mendez is an undisclosed principle, which means that she utilizes an agent to negotiate with a third party who is unaware of the agent's principal's identity. Because she contracted in that position, the agent Turcott, of an unidentified principal, can be held accountable on the contract as the original obligor (Mendez). Similarly, an unnamed principal can be held accountable because she must bear the burdens as well. An undeclared principal's and agent's liability is an alternative liability. It indicates that a third party can only hold the main or the agent responsible, not both of them. Thompkin has the right to sue both Mendez and Turcott, but he must decide which one he wants to pursue judgment against before the trial ends. Only when the principal has been discovered and the opportunity to make an informed decision can a third party judge whether the principal or the agent is liable. He can't get