Agency

Question 1

Morris v Statter

Answer 1

Special Agent/ Implied Authority -
Shepherd bought sheep without having the authority to do so; the farmer was therefore not liable. No additional scope of authority as he was a special agent.

Question 2

Mackenzie v Cluny Hill Hydropathic Co 1908

Answer 2

Implied Authority -

The Spa was liable for the manager’s actions as he was an agent of the owners.

Question 3

Panorama Developments Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Ltd 1971

Answer 3

Implied Authority -
The court held that the company should pay for the cars as the secretary had the authority to hire cars. This is the only way the third party could claim the money owed.

Question 4

Keighley Maxsted & Co v Durrant 1901

Answer 4

Identifiable Principal -
The agent did not disclose there was a principal and so when the delivery was made - along with a higher price - the principal refused to pay. This was allowed as the principal was never referred to.
Undisclosed actions by the agent cannot be ratified.

Question 5

Tinnevelly Sugar Refining Co Ltd v Mirrlees, Watson & Yaryan Co Ltd 1894

Answer 5

Competent Principal -

The principal was not formed yet therefore, the actions of the appointed agent were invalid.

Question 6

Grover Ltd v Mathews 1910

Answer 6

Reasonable Ratification Period -
The principal ratified the agents action’s after a fire burned down the premises. This was deemed by the court not to have been within a reasonable time period.

Question 7

Gilmour v Clark 1853

Answer 7

Obey P’s Instructions -
Principal instructed the Agent to put the goods on one ship; then the Agent’s servant put the goods on another which sank. The Agent was liable for these actions.

Question 8

Graham and Co v United Turkey Red Co Ltd 1922

Answer 8

Obey P’s Instructions -
Cannot sue for a breach of contract if you have not fulfilled the contract.
The agent has a duty to follow instructions.

Question 9

Cooke v Falconers Representatives 1850

Answer 9

Due Skill and Care -
Where the agent is a professional person, his duty is that of a reasonable, competent and careful ember of that profession.
Lord Fullerton

Question 10

Huntingdon Cooper and Sulphur Co Ltd v Henderson 1877

Answer 10

Relationship of Good Faith -
“If the agent and the third party colluded to defraud the principal, then the principal could rescind the contract between himself and the third party”. Lord Young

Question 11

Bell’s Principal on a Fiduciary Relationship

Answer 11

“An agent is bound to maintain the most entire good faith, and make the fullest disclosure of all facts and circumstances concerning the principal’s business”

Question 12

Robertson v Drummond and Reid 1881

Answer 12

A must not use their position for their own benefit -

Any benefit given must be transferred to the client.

Question 13

McPherson Trustee v Watt 1877

Answer 13

A must not have personal interest conflicts -
Watt sold 4 properties on behalf of the trustees. Selling to his brother to then sell on at a discounted price. This case highlights you must be honest in your transactions.

Question 14

Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society v Houston 1900

Answer 14

Cannot disclose confidential information -
4 years after Houston worked for LV he then disclosed their customer list. Tried to argue he was no longer an agent but this was not allowed.

Question 15

De Bussche v Alt 1878

Answer 15

Delegation of A’s Duties -
Court held there was no breach of duty by agent in appointing a sub-agent as delegation was expressly agreed. Where the sub-agent fails in their duties then the agent can be liable.

Question 16

Mackersy’s Executors v St Giles Cathedral Managing Board 1904

Answer 16

Agent is entitled to payment -

Rebuttable presumption that the agent is entitled to payment for work if the work is part of the agent’s livelihood.

Question 17

Drummond v Muirhead & Smith 1900

Answer 17

Right of Lien -
Looked after an estate where the party were bankrupt. The drafted deeds were retained until payment was made. The court held this was allowed.

Question 18

Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd 1964

Answer 18

Actual authority-
“…a legal relationship between the principal and agent created by a consensual agreement to which they alone are parties”. Lord Diplock

Question 19

Lord Diplock on Apparent Authority

Answer 19

Apparent authority -
“a legal relationship between the principal and the contractor [i.e. a third party] created by representation, made by the principal to the [third party]”.

Question 20

Lord Denning on Express Authority

Answer 20

“Authority given by express words”.

Question 21

Watteau v Fenwick 1893

Answer 21

Implied Authority -
An undisclosed principal can be held liable for the actions of an agent who is acting with an authority that is reasonable for a person in the agent’s position regardless of whether the agent has the actual authority to do so.

Question 22

International Sponge Importers Ltd v Watt and Sons 1911

Answer 22

Implied Authority -
Salesman took cheques made payable to himself. The court held these payments were valid as the third party had no reason to suspect that they were invalid.

Question 23

Bolton Partners Ltd v Lambert 1889

Answer 23

Ratification of an Agent’s Acts -

Held: Retrospective ratification is possible even where the other contracting party has attempted to avoid the contract.

Question 24

Stewart v Shannessy 1900

Answer 24

Agent’s ability to bind the principal -

Presumption that a personal signature if legally binding.

Question 25

Kimber Coal Co Ltd v Stone & Rolfe Ltd 1926

Answer 25

Identified Principal -
The agent signed on behalf of the principal and out “for (name of the principal)”. The court said this was okay but it should have been “for and on behalf of the principal”.

Question 26

Armour v TL Duff & Co 1911

Answer 26

Ability to identify the Principal -

The owners could be identified by looking at who owns the ship. So there was no liability for the Agent.

Question 27

Stirling Park & Co v Digby Brown 1995

Answer 27

Agent’s liability -

Solicitors can incur liability for their clients.

Question 28

Lamont Nisbett & Co v Hamilton 1907

Answer 28

Agent does not disclose the principal -

If the agent refuses to disclose the principal then the agent assumes the liability that the principal would incur.

Question 29

Meir & Co v Kuchenmeister 1881

Answer 29

Agent does not disclose the existence of a Principal -

Alternative liability, not joint and several.

Question 30

Bennett v Inveresk Paper Co 1891

Answer 30

Agent does not disclose the existence of a Principal -

The Principal can sue the third party once they have been disclosed.

Question 31

Anderson v Croall 1903

Answer 31

Third party losses -
Croall actioned a horse with a reduced price. The owner refused to give delivery as it was wholly unauthorised. The horse was resold and the buyer claimed damages for the lost profit in the alter sale. The court held that the agent warrants authority and so the principal will have a remedy.