Selling leaven without the owner’s knowledge

As I believe, this is the opinion of the Prophet and the Stifler, and I recall that the rabbis doubt this to be true because leaven that has been passed over for Passover is a rabbinical prohibition.

Why does a person not receive a zakhin from a person? This is a dispute between the haktzots (Ramg: 8) and the tahad, and the rama ruled as tahad. There is much evidence from the gam, as tahad, the haktzots (in the haktzots and in the avan) remain in the tsa from two issues in the gemara. The evidence that the haktzots cite from the rama and the toss is not convincing. It seems that the intention of the toss and the toss is different from the words of the haktzots, and many have already commented on this. Therefore, the ruling seems to be as tahad
[In addition, there is room to say that the haktzots will also have the zakhin rule in this, since he does receive something, receives money.]

In principle, there is room for your argument. Although it is only to the extent that a zakhin acts by virtue of an anan sahid as a messenger, and then he can do everything that a shliach can. The limitation is that he proved otherwise due to the issue of unconscious despair. Simply put, it depends on the dispute between Rashi and Toss regarding a person who takes a property in a place that is owed to others, whether it is also said in the shliach or only in the beneficiary, and so on.
But in this matter, it is very difficult to say so. The company is not religiously owned, and therefore there is no anan sahid who appoints him as a shliach (which is the anan sahid of Toss) and who generally wants this (and then there is no law for a zakhin to go).
And all this even with a zakhin for a person. Making a zakhin out of a person in such a situation is not appropriate at all.