Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Commercial Law > Agency > Flashcards

Agency Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards Civil Procedure 1L flashcards
1
Q

C & P Haulage v Middleton [1983]

A

Unfair bargain v bad bargain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Part Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964]

A

principle of apparent authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Welsh development agency v export finance co ltd [1992]

A

written document versus the substance of the transaction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

interfoto picture library ltd v stiletto visual programmes [1988]

A

in England - need to put goof faith / expectation into agreement - it is not necessarily implied like in USA

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

James Finlay and Company Ltd v NV Kwik Hoo Tong Handel Maatschappii [1929]

A

bill of lading - ????

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

J spurling ltd v Bradshaw [1956]

A

Lord Justice Denning on “good faith”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Yam seng Pte Ltd v International Trade corp ltd [2013]

A

development of “good faith” in english common law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd and another [2015]

A

suicide ship - unreasonable in duty of good faith when operating an investigation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

The golden victory [2007]

A

compensatory principle - damages should represent the value of the contractual benefits of which the claimant had been deprived by the breach of contract, no less but also no more

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

williams v roffey bros & Nicholls Ltd [1991]

A

Commercial Pragmatism v doctrinal purity - bonus payments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

sale of goods act 1979

A

s22. nemo dat quod non habet - s23. protects 3rd party from being affected by prior title of which they have/can have no notice

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

kelly v cooper [1993]

A

Fiduciary - Duty to avoid conflicts of interests and/or duties
Estate agent mansion beach side case – conflict for agent
- Fiduciary duty altered through the contract

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

goldcorp exchange ltd & Ors v Ligget & Ors [1994]

A

unallocated cusotmers - chain of liquidation - unsecured creditors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Cuncliffe-Owen v Teather & Greenwood [1967]

A

commercial custom and usage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Kelly v Cooper [1993]

A

Equity in commercial law - seafront property 2 adjoining - fiduciary duty on agents in commercial context

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

commercial agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993

A

regulation 2(1) defines commercial agency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Factors Act 1889

A

UK establishment of Factors or “agents”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Baring v Corrie [1818]

A

broker is similar to agent but will not usually have control/possession of the goods and should not do so in its own name

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Anglo-African Shipping Co of New York Inc v J Mortner Ltd [1962]

A

confirming houses as agents

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Page v combined shipping and Trading Co Ltd [1997]

A

Agents being culnerable recognised by Staughton LJ and the courts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

EC Directive 86/653

A

Protection gtranted to agents - implementd by commercial agents regulation 1993

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

C-3/04 Poseidon Chatering BV v marianne Zeeschip VOF [2007]

A

demonstrates the inclusion of the word “continuing” would appear to indicate that an agent who is engaged to effect a one-off transaction would not have continuing authority and so would not constitute a commercial agent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

W Nagel v Pluczenik Diamond Co NV [2017]

A

o When determining whether an agent has continuing authority to negotiate, the court of appeal state that –
“whether an agent has continuing authority to negotiate is a question which is to be determined by reference to the terms of the contract with the principal, not by the extent or frequency of the exercise of that authority. An agent may have authority to carry out functions which in the event he never performs, or performs only occasionally” - Popplewell J

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

St Albans City and District Council v International Computers Ltd [1997]

A

problems around the definition of the term “goods” case may be out dated in a digital age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Parks v Esso Petroleum Co Ltd [2000]

A

Early cases adopted a restrictive approach on the dictionary defnintion of the word negotiate which was later changed in PJ Pipe & valve Co

26
Q

PJ Pipe & Valve Co v Audco India Ltd [2005]

A

favour the wider view that an agent need not have the authority to engage in actual bargaining in order to constitute a commercial agent - point of the 1993 regulations was to give agents a stake in the good will generated for the Principal……. P must act in good faith too – must inform agent of changes that they would need to prepare for future sale – good faith works 2 ways

27
Q

AMB Imabllaggi PLastici SRL v Pacflex Ltd [1999]

A

Person acting on own behalf is not a commercial agent - purchase of product

28
Q

Waugh v HB Clifford & sons [1982]

A

usual or customary authority - solicitor

29
Q

Hill v Harris [1965]

A
30
Q

China-Pacific SA v Food Corporation of India [1982]

A

For an agency of necessity to arise:
‘circumstances [must] exist which in law have the effect of conferring on him authority to create contractual rights and obligations between that other person and a third party that are directly enforceable by each against the other.’

30
Q

Bedford Insurance Co Ltd v Instituto des Pressegurous do Brasil [1985]

A

what amounts to ratification - P must show an unequivocal intention to be bound by contract

31
Q

Lass Salt Garvin v Pomeroy [2003]

A

silence and inactivity not normally sufficient BUT invoices unchallenged until they become overdue

32
Q

Bolton Partners v Lambert [1889]

A

Retroactive effect of ratification from the principal - what is needed in order to establish a sale

33
Q

Keighley maxsted & Co v Durant [1901]

A

Ratification not available
If A never purported to be an agent or agency was undisclosed

34
Q

Brook v Hook [1871]

A
35
Q

Roma corportation v proeed tin and general investment Ltd [1952]

A

previous expression of apparent authority

36
Q

racing UK ltd v doncaster racecourse ltd [2005]

A

Misrepresention as to A’s authority by P (not by A) - Usual authority (look at industry) - Mr S was clerk of the course and the management of media rights for UK race courses usually undertaken by the clerk of the course – appointment to a particular position …. Specific holding out – council had described Mr S as ‘Chief Executive of Doncaster racecourse’ in communications with third partie…Course of dealing – over a fairly long time all negotiations of media rights had been conducted by Mr S on behalf of council and all contracts signed accordingly

37
Q

Armagos Ltd v Mundogas [1986]

A

‘It must be a most unusual and peculiar case where an agent who is known to have no general authority to enter into transactions of a certain type can by reason of circumstances created by the principal reasonably be believed to have specific authority to enter into a particular transaction of that type.’

38
Q

Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v Soplex Wholesale SUpplies Ltd and PS Refson & Co ltd, the raffaella [1985]

A

Apparent authority to make statements of facts as to what is needed for approving transaction

39
Q

First Engergy Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd [1993]

A

Usual authority - subdivision of implied authority… can be utilised in apprent authority where P’s repuation involves appointing Agent to a position which carries a usual authority… No apparent authroity to enter into transaction but apparent authority to communicate that transaction has been approved by P - confirmed in Kelly v fraser [2012]

40
Q

Overbrooke estates ltd v Glencombe properties ltd [1974]

A

Rasonable reliance or Absence of notice - TP actually knew, could have known or ought to have known (suspicious or unusual circumstances) that the agent did not have the authority to enter into the contract.
o ‘could have known’

41
Q

AL Underwood Ltd v Bank of Liverpool [1924]

A

“ought to have known” - suspicious/unusual circumstances

42
Q

Garnac Grain Co Inc v HMF Faure and Fairclough [1967]

A

consent of both parties needed to establish an agency relationship and an objective evaulation of thisconsent is required

43
Q

ireland v livingstone [1872]

A

ambiguous instruction from the principal - actual/express authority - where words by P are capable of multiple interpretations, P will be bound where A acts on a reasonable interpretation of good faith

44
Q

European asain bak AG v Punjab and sind bank [1983]

A

P is not bound if A had the chance to confirm the meaning of instructions and acted in a way not intended by P - must be reasonable

45
Q

Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968]

A

apparent authority / implied actual authority - contractural interpretation

46
Q

Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968]

A

apparent authority / implied actual authority - contractual interpretation

47
Q

watteau v fenwick [1893]

A

The court held the principal, the defendants, were liable on the grounds that the third party was not aware of the restriction on the agent’s authority. According to the court, once it is established that the defendant was the real principal, the ordinary doctrine as to principal and agent applies.
Thus, the court found the defendants liable for the price of the cigars even though they expressly forbade their manager to purchase the cigars.

48
Q

irvine & Co v Watsons & Sons [1988]

A

TP’s obligation under the contract is discharged when TP pays A (even if A fails to hand the money on to P) provided A has the actual or apparent authority to receive payment.
P’s obligation under the contract is discharged not when P pays A but when TP receives the payment, unless TP makes P believe that A has already paid

49
Q

McCullagh v Lane Fox & Partners [1995]

A

TP has no right to sue P or A when A falsely describes a proeprty sold to TP as TP had ample chance to survey it himself - in contract saying they dont accept liability for misdescription

50
Q

Yonge v Toynbee [1910]

A

Agent is liable for a breach of warranty of authority - need to show agent warranted that he had authority which he did not -

51
Q

Bridges & Salmon Ltd v The Swan [1968]

A

parallel contract actual authority - he owned the boat and got it repaired case

52
Q

Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co ltd [1994]

A

insurance and undisclosed agency - o An agent who has actual authority and enters into a contract with another person on behalf of their principal, does not need to disclose their principal’s identity to the other party if the other party is willing to treat the agent’s principal as a party to the contract. In a commercial context, the other party is generally assumed to be willing unless they express their unwillingness or there are circumstances that would make the agent aware of their unwillingness.

53
Q

Banca Nazionale del Lavoro SPA v Playboy CLub London Limited and Ohters [2018]

A

gambler fraud case- incompatible area of law - court disagree that this was an undisclosed agency

54
Q

Chaudry v Prabhakar [1989]

A

car buying for friend case - Duty to exercise due care and skill

55
Q

Bristol and West building society v mothew [1998]

A

‘A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal.’

56
Q

Boardman v Phipps [1967]

A

agent’s duty not to make secret profit - solicitor buying shares case

57
Q

Boston v Deep Sea fishing and Ice Co v Ansell [1888]

A

agent’s Duty not to take Bribes

58
Q

Way v latilla [1937]

A

agent’s rights to remuneration

59
Q
  • Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993, which implement the EU Commercial Agents Directive (86/653/EEC)
A

termination by principle and agent

Commercial Law (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions