Agency 3 Flashcards

Question

what is sit 5 & case?

Answer 1

5. (Collateral contract) Breach of warranty of authority, a asserted to 3rd party they have p's auth, based on asser 3rd party entered contract and would'nt have otherwise Assertion then turns out untrue but by time 3rd discovers = loss, they don't get recourse from p bc a didnt have auth so can't sue a directly but bc said unture= liable for 3rd party and pay damages and compensate for loss bc ur warrant of auth turned out to be false. -Firbank’s Executors v Humphreys (1887) LR 18 QBD 54 supports this

Answer 2

Collen v Wright (1857) 8 E&B 647 W purportedly leased G’s farm to C indicate has auth to enter into agremenet on behalf of someone elses farm, C cultivated and improved the farm, G refused to sign the lease on basis that W had no authority - . He had no auth from me and I have no obligation to u collen initially sued g and failed as a had no auth so tried to sue a- wouldnt have entered otherwise- liable based on breach of war of auth- even if a believed true still liable - couldnt sue p so sue a compensate for loss

Answer 3

6. A’s tortious liability: -Tort of deceit False representation made knowingly/without belief in its truth/ recklessly as to its truth or falsity - -Negligent misrepresentation negligent misstatement negligent misrepresentation (Misrepresentation Act 1967) -Conversion A deals with goods in a manner that is inconsistent with T’s possession - lets say u dealt with good in manner that inconsistent with 3rd parties posse e.g u either tendered 3rd parties goods to wrong person or refused to tender goods that point mean to u could be reliable according to tort of conver -Defamation agents of an author/editor/publisher in same position as principal-also liable for defam-if ur agen to p and repeat or pass on any defam statement cocnering 3rd party- wouldn’t priotise thes in exam wouldn't prioritise these in exam

Answer 4

7. 7. Unnamed principal A purportedly enters into contract on behalf of P, discloses that he is agent but does not name P to 3rd party: still knows but didnt mention name - you are liable as a -GENRAL RULE- 3rd party presumed tro agree to contrct with unidentified principal as long as agent liable and agent also agreeing to liable as not saying who acting for Benton v Campbell, Parker & Co Ltd [1925] All ER Rep 187 presumption regarding T’s consent and A’s agreement-3rd person would only agree to contract with unkown p if 3rd party knew making my sel fliabl as agent and is this scenario agnt agreed to make liab by mnot identifying principle= eprosnal liability too = Fleet v Murton (1871) L.R. 7 Q.B. 126 custom where broker does not disclose P’s name on the contract undisclosed is when don't know at al

Answer 5

if agent comits any torts are there any cirum in which principal answerable to 3rd pary for those torts

Answer 6

Cornfoot v Fowke (1840) 9 LJ Ex 297 F sought A’s help in finding a house, asked if there was ‘anything objectionable about it’. Following entry into agreement, found adjoining brothel. - could p be liable for a's misrep held yes: either u as p told agent not to reveal this or whether didn’t give agent enough info– innocent misrep u as p reliab for agent agent in position fraud 3rd party therefor u as principle= laible = MORE FRAUD/DISHONESTY SPECTRUM also torts and neg

Answer 7

Monaghan v Taylor (1886) 2 TLR 685 T owned music hall, engaged singer who sang song infringing M’s copyright. T denied authorizing singer to sing the song. Tylor was liable to m for breaches of copyright

Answer 8

NOW UNDISCLOSED. In reality u are agent but end up principal. Oystertec plc v Barker[2002] All ER (D) 192 -supports this undisclosed p can sue and be sued on a contract made in name of another person with his auth is contract in truth although not in form og undisclosed p himself- Keighley, Maxsted & Co v Durant [1900-03] All ER Rep 40-U the agent are clothed with the appearance of a principal

Answer 9

.On the other hand legally the real p has some rights under that partic contract. As genuine principle he still has rights to be sued and be sued. undiclsoed doesn’t undermine their rights at all

Answer 10

Coates v Lewes (1808) 1 Camp 444 C employed A to sell linseed oil on C’s behalf. A sold in own name to L, and L paid A. C sought to recover purchase price from L. - purchase price werent passed on held - even though p was entitled to sue 3rdat point where our 3r party had paid agent, they had effective discharded their respons , so if undisclosed pricniapla nd ur 3rd pary nd u make payment toa gent u ahev dischred respon udner contract no one lse can come after u after that purchase price, cos believed a was p Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926] Ch. 932 D sought to buy land from R&S through C, knowing that they would not sell to him.- sim to pinkest pink- refused to comlete agreement when knew who but court held that mere factwould never sold duyster coudlnt refuse if knew he was the real principal clos relasitell theyed be nothing to prevent that agent to buy land fro them an repurchase.

Answer 11

‘This doctrine is anomalous because it gives the undisclosed principal rights, and subjects him to liabilities, that arise under a contract to which he was not originally privy.’ -Sealy & Hooley (2008) -‘the whole law as to the rights and liabilities of an undisclosed principal is inconsistent with the elementary doctrines of the law of contract. The right of one person to sue another on a contract not really made with the person suing is unknown to every other legal system except that of England and America. It rests originally on a sort of common law equity, and originates in the feeling that a principal who had got the advantage of a purchase ought to pay for it if the agent to whom the seller really trusted was not able to do so.’ Pollock (1887) =-‘…while the development of this branch of law may have been anomalous… it is justified on grounds of commercial convenience’ Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Assurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 AC 199

Answer 12

Tryign to say where in scenario didnt do anything about d he still has rights and liab- it deosnt fit very neatly with toehr., how does contract btw these 2 actually become contract that belongs t this party. So commentary o this - sealy and hooley – this docton is odd doctrine in contract law terms. Doctrine that tends to be better no in common law doc England and America, less so I ncivil law sysyems. - france this whole concept of undisclosed principal rights would be alien in some legal system so aits odd doc b its very limited in terms of usage, its confined to american English law see hillock actually tries to rationalise, says route of doc must be on equity, reason say if this principle benefited from this contract beginef agent and 3rd this principal should have some liab to pay for it , so hat f agent idnr habl to fulfil our 3rd party also has oem 1 to go for. ? Siu khan case- statement read as written –wheres the convenience?- certainty –recourse and trying to makr contract workable which should be be in contract terms so trying to find way around conve standards contrac pricnpal order to say cotradt workable –gives principal rights against 3rd nd vice versa

Answer 13

‘The terms of the contract may, expressly or by implication, exclude the principal's right to sue, and his liability to be sued. The contract itself, or the circumstances surrounding the contract, may show that the agent is the true and only principal.’ Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd [1994 ] 2 AC 199 u can remove principal rights to sue or be sed – 3rd party has to focus on agent only .

Answer 14

Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497 S wanted to attend 1st night theatre performance. S asked P to purchase one for him. On arrival, B refused S admission. said asked friend purchased his ticket - mr butt refuses entry- said sued for breach of contract he was undiclosed p- can 3rd party sue- court said theatre won bc of circumstance- general rule- sale of land much more impersonal but where where u have sale for launch stronger pos than land- good first impressions - if impersonal less ways to deal with undisclosed undisclosed will not apply where the agent actually lies aswell that ntoa cting for principal when really is

Answer 15

-archer v stone – say im agent set contrct 3rd party -3rd party are u acting for anone and say no this means there are no undisclosed agency that p can claim. Then clear to every1 that there ar eno rights anresponsilitye tta he has sasusment. So im the true principal only btw me agent and 3rd party

Answer 16

- ‘where a contract … is made with an agent, in his own name, for an undisclosed principal, either the agent or the principal may sue upon it’ Sims v Bond (1833) B & Ad 389 - A loses right of action against T if undisclosed principal intervenes Atkinson v Cotesworth (1825) 3 B & C 647 - Undisclosed principal is subject to any defences which T may have against A - T entitled to sue A and undisclosed principal (after intervention) - A liable until T makes election - ‘This unusual doctrine makes a third party liable to a person whose connection with the transaction was unknown to him, though it also allows him to sue that person.’ Burrows

Answer 17

can both sue but if any point undisclosed intervens makes self known means agent can no longer sue 3rd arty. Agent has to fall out . What if both in position to sue 3rd prty but agent has certain fences to raise against u e.g arising from contract e. g duress- does that effect principal -yes it does that undiclsoed p,affect by any defences that 3rd party can raise by agent. - Works other way 3rd aprty u can sue 1 agent or principle so same sort of princap had with disclosed as iocne u know ur in psoiton to sue anyone of them. When u 3rd party chosn to sue principal means agent no longer liable, so once made election the toehr aprty has to fall out of pic, s even doc protect principal give right it also proctects 3rd party right it gives thirs party right agent and prcnoal

Answer 18

Keep in mind aswell if u are a principal in undisclosed agency scenario u can not ratify contracts. So if ur undisloced p ur agent has entere into contract 3rd ary without prin u cannot rectify contrct

Answer 19

Keighley, Maxsted & Co v Durant [1901] AC 240. P instructs A to buy corn at a certain price. A buys at a higher price in own name, does not disclose that acting for P. P refuses to accept delivery. -‘The question of law is whether a contract made by a man purporting and professing to act on his own behalf alone, and not on behalf of a principal, but having an undisclosed intention to give the benefit of the contract to a third party, can be ratified by that third party so as to render him able to sue or liable to be sued on the contract.’

Answer 20

-Keighley- talked about this when talked ageny rect- here u have p – bought higher but not actin my c undisloced – u appear to be true principle then ultimate when corn delivered p don’t want to accept- read aswritne- even if as principle wanted to rec cant bc undislcoes, so even if p willing to accpet higher price the been prevented from rec cos at time corn was brought agent didn’t disclose acting for some1 so rpincipe is bound by contract that agent acing within there auth , if undi ag u cant suvb approve unauth acts of agent??important limitation onconcept on disclosed agency

Answer 21

SO IF U HAV AGENT U SUPPOSDLY ACTIN ON OWN BEHALF BUT ACTUALL INTENDS TO LET PRICNIAPL BENEFIT FROM COTNRACT CAN THAT P RECTIF CONTRRCT AND BECOME LIAB TO SUE AND BE SUED NO CANT TELLS US THAT RE HAS TO BE KEPT NARROW LIMTS, yes ther is such thing as agency by rect but its very narrowly applied/

Answer 22

A exercises authority to bring P and T into binding legal relations Understanding the parties’ rights and obligations where T is aware of the existence of a P where A acts for a P whose existence is hidden from T Understanding in what situations A and T can incur direct liability to each other ‘Complications which can arise to prevent a contractual relationship being created’ between P and T (Baskind)

Answer 23

This where we are now last week tslke about auth be alla d end all bidn g But se here even where agent has excercised autht ehres till room for that partic contract to be els binding or more depending whether ur dealing with closed or disclosed So how does it affect the agents right prinipals rightrs nad 3rd parties if 3rd party is p or not. Improtnatly if ur agent u want to know when u can be directly liably for 3rd aprt u think ur actin to someon1 but what extent ur u exposing urself to 3rd party And if ur pricnipe,huw ant tokknow what can happen to prevent ur vindinf rels with 3rd party from actually coming about whatc an itnerfer with the creation fot hat binding rels.