Which of the following situations would NOT permit the opinion of a lay witness to be admissible?

In the context of lay witness testimony, the admissibility of a witness's opinion is typically governed by rules that allow non-expert witnesses to provide their observations and inferences about certain matters that fall within their everyday experiences.

A lay witness can testify about general appearance or condition, state of emotion, and even the speed of a moving object if these observations are based on their perception and experience. The law recognizes that individuals are capable of forming opinions based on their sensory experiences, allowing for opinions on matters such as someone's appearance or emotional state.

However, the situation involving whether one acted as an agent or whether an agreement was made does not fall within the realm of typical lay observations. This subject matter often requires specialized knowledge or legal understanding that a layperson may not possess. Questions of agency and contract formation involve nuanced legal concepts and may require expert testimony to provide clarity.

Thus, the opinion of a lay witness about agency or agreements is not admissible because it goes beyond the scope of what a layperson can reasonably know or express based on personal experience, making this the correct answer in identifying the situation that would not permit a lay witness's opinion to be admissible.