Who is accountable when an AI agent makes a deal?

FX-07 PROB-05 gate: TEACH cast: Quinn ๐ŸŸข assertable

Quinn's agent Alfie negotiated terms, and the counterparty across the table stopped to ask a plain question: if this goes wrong, who do we hold? Quinn pointed at Alfie. But a counterparty needs a named party it can hold to the bargain, and software has no legal capacity โ€” Alfie is a tool, not a person or company the law recognizes, so there is no Alfie to invoice, serve, or pursue. Naming "the agent" gives the other side nothing to grip.

So Quinn put a named party where the counterparty's hand could close. She formed a Wyoming series LLC with a human Member and Manager, and Alfie signed as an authorized signer with capped authority โ€” for the entity, never for himself. Now the counterparty contracts with the human-owned entity behind Alfie, and that entity is the name on the line they can hold. The agent moves the request; the entity is who stands behind it.

MoralA counterparty contracts with a name the law can hold, so accountability rests on the human-owned entity behind the agent, never on the software itself.

What this does not mean. This shows who the counterparty can name and hold, not that having an entity made anyone trust them or won the deal. A named party gives recourse a destination; it does not promise the deal closes, that terms are honored, or that the operator is shielded.

See also: FX-03 โ€” a script with a human cosigner ยท FX-04 โ€” an agent can't hold an account.

W.S. ยง17-29-211 (Wyoming series LLC)