I'm thinking about not teaching inherent agency power (a.k.a. inherent authority) anymore

Inherent agency power is a stupid doctrine, which the drafters of the Restatement (Second) of Agency invented mainly because they had one case--Watteau v. Fenwick--that couldn't slot into any of the existing categories.

As I discuss in my book Agency, Partnerships & LLCs, the problem is that inherent authority is so formless that it could gradually swallow the entire area of authority. The Restatement (Third) dropped the phrase “inherent agency power.” Instead, it offers a revised and broader version of apparent authority, making clear that conduct such as placing an agent in a position of authority can create apparent authority to do what is customary. To deal with cases like Watteau, the Restatement adopts a new concept called “estoppel of an undisclosed principal.”

Students have a very hard time getting their hands around inherent agency power (as do a lot of judges). It takes more time in class than actual and apparent authority combined.

I wondered whether the effort is worth it. A Westlaw search found only one case referring to "inherent agency power" in the last three years and it was an unreported federal district court decision out of Oklahoma. The same search found only three law review articles in the last three years.

A search for the phrase ["inherent authority" /5 agent] found only two pertinent cases in the last three years. The same search found only one law review article in the last three years.

In sum, inherent authority was controversial from the outset. It is no longer recognized by the Restatement. Courts are no longer citing it. So why am I still teaching it? And why is it still included in my casebook?