Does a third party who had no dealings with Pollock as a landowner have a valid claim against Pollock?

Further on this point, the authority cited by plaintiffs, Redman v. Walters, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d 448, 454, 152 Cal.Rptr. 42, recognizes a lack of connection between persons such as these plaintiffs and Pollock as landowner:

"Moreover, such a rule of presumed knowledge of the principal will apply only in respect of a third person dealing with the agent. 'Imputation of knowledge is based upon the necessities of general commercial relationships, and where a principal acts through an agent, a third person dealing with such agent is entitled to rely upon his knowledge and notice and it binds [7 Cal.App.4th 675] the principal.... [T]he rule has never been applied to protect one who has had no dealings with the principal through an agent or otherwise.' [Citation.]" (Redman v. Walters, supra, 88 Cal.App.3d at p. 454, 152 Cal.Rptr. 42.)