Agency

Question 1

Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Limited [1964] All ER 630,

(Agency - Ostensible Authority)

Answer 1

if the principal acts in a manner which suggests to the third party that the agent is authorised, the principal cannot thereafter seek to deny that the agent is properly authorised.

Can be rationalised as a type of personal bar in Scots law

• If 3rd party can prove;
1. Representation by the principle (may be words may be contracts)
2. Reliance on this belief of authority by the 3rd party.
3. 3rd party suffers loss
Then the 3rd party can raise an action and claim damages.

Question 2

Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1986] AC 717

Agency - Ostensible Authority

Answer 2

FAILED IN THIS CASE

M could not, in the absence of a representation by the defendants as to his authority, reasonably be believed to have authority to complete the agreement.
- Agent alone created the fiction of authority so the case failed.
(*Must be the principle who gives the impression that agent is authorised, not agent himself)

Question 3

Keighley Maxted v Durant [1901] AC 240

Ratification of excess of authority - cannot be done unless agent has acted solely as an agent

Answer 3

The agent was authorised by the principle to buy goods on joint account of the agent and Keighley Maxted subject to a maximum price
 IN the event the agent failed to take delivery of the wheat and the seller sued the principle as a result.
 Court found that in that case the principle was not liable as he was not a party to the contract.
 The contract was between the agent and the seller (third party)

 Held the contract could not be ratified where the agent had not acted solely as a principle. He had entered into it partially on his own behalf.

Question 4

Imageview Management Ltd v Jack [2009] EWCA Civ 63

Agents Fiduciary Duty

Answer 4

 Kelvin Jack commissioned Berry (who works for Imageview management) to be his agent for transfer to Dundee united.
 United promised berry £3,000 for getting Jack a work permit
 Jack claimed this was serious breach as he was making a “secret payment” on the side.
 Berry had to give Jack ALL THE MONEY, the £3,000 on the side and all of his wages and commission he made from jack.
- P.s. looks like they are punishing the agent, goes further than just loss of money.
- ** would have been fine if Berry had told Jack that Dundee United were offering him £3,000 for getting him a work permit. Jack may have allowed him to keep it anyway.

Question 5

McPherson’s Trustees v Watt (1877) 5 R (HL) 9

Agents fiduciary duty

Answer 5

 dealings between a solicitor and a client, the solicitor is acting for a trust.
 The solicitor is setting up the sale of 4 houses for this trust.
 The price and all the terms are sorted and the sales go through.
 The trust subsequently finds that the buyers of the houses was the solicitor and he had kept this secret from the client.
 IN fact there was an arrangement whereby the solicitor was keeping two and giving two to his brother.
 Perfect example of the fact that the agent must put his interests entirely secondly to the principle’s interests.

 Clearly he is not acting in the best interest of the trust if he is buying the house for himself.