Suppose a principal appoints an agent to sell goods and later withdraws that authority. Once the revocation is communicated, the agent’s future capacity to transact on the principal’s behalf changes.
First perspective: The principal is exercising an existing right to withdraw a delegated power.
Second perspective: The agent is now required to stop acting under the old authorization. Thus the notification has a binding effect on the agent.
Because these perspectives coexist, the case is not treated either as a simple non-binding market notification or as identical in every respect to a fully adversarial property lawsuit.