[T]he scope of an agency is to be determined not alone from what the principal may have told the agent to do, but from what he knows or ought to know, in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, the agent is doing in the premises#2: Kahn v. Royal Banks of Missouri, 790 S.W.2d 503 (Mo.App.1990) (adopts inherent authority)
#3: Linam v. Murphy, 360 Mo. 1140, 232 S.W.2d 937, 941 (1950) (even if employee acts contrary to principals instruction, he is still acting within scope of employment).
#4: Gleason v. Seaboard Air Line Ry., 278 U.S. 349, 49 S.Ct. 161, 73 L.Ed. 415 (1929) followed by Marvel Ind. v. Boatmen's Nat'l Bank, 239 S.W.2d 346, 350 (Mo. 1951).
#5: Tietjens v. General Motors Corporation, 418 S.W.2d 75, 84 (Mo.1967) (respondeat superior, distinct from doctrine of Gleason v. Seaboard Air Line, applicable in cases of fraud).
#6: Premium Fin. Specialists, Inc. v. Hullin, 90 S.W.3d 110, 113 (Mo. App. W.D.2002) (adopts Restatement (Second) Agency Sections 257 and 261 (1958); accord Mark Twain Plaza Bank v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 859, 864 (Mo. App. 1986).
#7: Hamilton Hauling, Inc. v. GAF Corp., 719 S.W.2d 841, 847 (Mo.App.1986).
#8: Dudley v. Dumont, 526 S.W.2d 839, 844 (Mo.App.1975) (Implied or inferred agency is authority given implicitly by the principal to his agent, circumstantially proved, or evidenced by conduct, or inferred from a course of dealing between the alleged principal and agent.) The key to authority implied from course of conduct is the knowing acquiescence of the principal in the past acts. Id. at 845. See also National Plumbing Supply Co. v. Torretti, 237 Mo.App. 570, 175 S.W.2d 947, 951 (1943). (Conduct with reference to the particular subject matter and a previous course of dealings relevant in determining agency); accord Mark Twain Plaza Bank v. Lowell H. Listrom & Co., Inc., 714 S.W.2d 859, 864 (Mo. App. 1986) ("by its conduct, [principal] entered into an implied agency relationship").
#9: West v. Sharp Bonding Agency, Inc., 327 S.W.3d 7 (Mo. App. 2010 ("competing inferences" as to right to control make actual agency issue for jury and preclude summary judgment).
#10: Shook v. Retail Hardware Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 154 Mo. App. 394, 134 S.W. 589, 592 (Mo. App. 1911) (restrictions on agents authority not brought home to third party are not binding; and, the power of agent is determined by nature of business intrusted to him and is prima facie coextensive with its requirements).