A broker is considered as operating under apparent authority when doing which of the following?

A broker is considered to be operating under apparent authority when conducting a transaction without explicit permission. Apparent authority arises when a broker acts in a way that suggests to third parties they have the authorization to perform certain actions, even if they do not have formal permission from their principal.

In real estate transactions, if a broker has a long-standing relationship where the principal has allowed certain actions in the past, third parties may assume the broker has the authority to act on behalf of the principal without needing to verify explicit permission each time. This can lead to legally binding situations where the principal may be held accountable for the broker's actions, even if those actions were not specifically authorized.

The other options do not illustrate apparent authority. Obtaining permission verbally does imply some level of authority, but it is not in the context of apparent authority. Acting within the scope of explicit authority clearly defines that the broker has permission, which does not fall under the category of apparent authority. Using a legally binding contract also denotes a scenario where authority is established, rather than implied or assumed, which is key to understanding apparent authority.