Question A. Carter was shown a home for sale in Pleasant Valley, Utah by Diana, a real estate agent. Diana's supervisor, Willie, knew that the home was subject to frequent and severe winds, that a window had blown in years earlier and that other houses in the area had suffered wind damage. Willie knew this because he lived in the Pleasant Valley area, had sold a number of nearby properties, and had been a city zoning officer. Many Pleasant Valley residents, including Willie, had wind gauges on their homes to measure and compare wind speeds to their neighbors. Willie did not disclose this information to Diana or Carter. Carter buys the house and several months later, high winds blow in a number of windows and otherwise damage the property. Carter files a suit in a Utah state court against the real estate agency alleging fraud. He argues in part that Willie's knowledge of the winds was imputable to his real estate agency. The agency responded that Willie's knowledge was obtained outside the scope of employment. What is the rule regarding how much of an agent's knowledge a principal is assumed to know? How should the court rule in this case