Agency Flashcards
Restatement of the Law: Agency (American Law Institute) 1.01:
Agency is “the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a ‘principal’) manifests assent to another person (an ‘agent’) that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the principal’s control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act.”
So three elements: fiduciary relationship, consensual relationship, action
Sir John Donaldson MR in Potter v Customs (1985)
“The use of the word ‘agent’ in any mercantile transaction is, of itself, wholly uninformative of the legal relationship between the parties, and the use of the words ‘independent agent’ takes the matter no further. Either is consistent with a self-employed person acting either as a true agent who puts his principal into a contractual relationship with a third party or with such a person acting as a principal.”
Pure effect of agency = direct relationship between P and 3P
Lord Denning MR in Phonogram v Lane (1982)
Classical form of Agency:
“The general principle is, of course, that a person who makes a contract ostensibly as an agent cannot afterwards sue or be sued upon it”.
Contrast other forms of agency, e.g. undisclosed agency: agent acting for an undisclosed principal is a party to the contract with the third party until the principal chooses to disclose himself/herself.
Dowrick: “The Relationship of Principal and Agent” (1954)
“The essential characteristic of an agent is that he is invested with a legal power to alter his principal’s legal relations with third persons: the principal is under a correlative liability to have his legal relations altered. It is submitted that this power-liability relation is the essence of the relationship of principal and agent.”
Power-liability theory of agency
Pollock, The Principles of Contract (1876)
“by agency, the individual’s legal personality is multiplied in space”
A has legal power to alter relationship not only for himself but someone else too
And P can alter his won legal relationships as well as having A do it for him
Krebs’ view of agency
Offer and Acceptance model, A is jjust means of communication between P and X
McMeel “Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Agency” (2000)
There are two separate liabilities:
“First, the principal’s having conferred power upon the agent, he is subject to obligations and liabilities to third parties under the transactions thereby effected. Secondly, the agent’s: if he chooses to act in accordance with the powers entrusted to him, he must do so in accordance with the legal consequences which attend agency. He must act with reasonable care and skill and he is subject to the stringency of the fiduciary regime.”
A must act w certain case and skill, and is subject to fiduciary regime
Examples of Agency
Directors
Solicitors and counsel
Nb Estate agents: no usual power to act on behalf of P, only to make representations about the property (Sorrell v Finch), no power to amke contract between client and pros[ective buyer unless specifically authorised to do so (as in Spiro v Lintern)
Factors
Commercial agents. Define din ommercial Agents Regulations 1993 as a “self-employed intermediary who has continuing authority to negotiate the sale and purchase of goods on behalf of another person (‘the principal’), or to negotiate and conclude the sale and purchase of goods on behalf of and in the name of that principal”
What is agency of necessity?
The term ‘agency of necessity’ has been used where the law recognises that, in an emergency, C may have: (i) powers to act for benefit of D; (ii) right to indemnity from D for costs thus reasonably incurred.
eg China-Pacific SA v Food Corpn of India, The Winson [1982] AC 939 (HL)).
Likely that (i) can be explained on basis of apparent authority, and (ii) on unjust enrichment principles.
Is not really agency at all
re Nevill (1870-1)
Agency v sale and resale
Mellish LJ: “[I]f [N] is at liberty, according to the contract between him and [T], to sell at any price he likes, and receive payment at any time he likes, but is to be bound, if he sells the goods, to pay [T] for them at a fixed price and a fixed time…whatever the parties may think, their relation is not that of principal and agent.”
Agency v Trusts
Both are fiduciaries, but T doesn’t act on behalf of B in a way that puts B in direct relationship w 3P
Ad re internal aspect: T necessarily holds rights subject to duties owed to B in relation to those rights - othherwise, similarities to agency, but no general power f B to revoke T’s position
Agency v Bailment
External: As is the case w a trust, bailee’s action do not create contractual relations between X and bailor
Internal: Similarities. Note powers of bailee, even if not expreely agreed to by bailor (e.g. to have property repaird - see eg teppenden v Artus)
Agents v Independent Contractors or Employees: Vicarious Liability?
Some independent contractors and employees may have agency powers to perform certain acts. Difficult question arises of VL. Usually Q is whther it occurred in course of employment, or re Agents, whether it occurred in course of performing what A was asked to do
Lord Woolf MR in Credit Lyonnais v Export Creditors (2000)
“[t]he wrong of the servant of agent for which the master or principal is liable is one committed in the case of a servant in the course of his employment, and in the case of an agent in the course of his authority. It is fundamental to the whole approach to vicarious liability that an employer or principal should not be liable for acts of the servant or agent which are not performed within this limitation. In many cases particularly cases of fraud, the question arises as to whether the particular conduct complained of is an unauthorised mode of performing what the servant or agent is engaged to do.”
Lloyd v Grace (1912)
clerk at a firm of solicitors was engaged to conduct firm’s conveyancing – widow was induced by clerk to give him instructions to sell her property to the clerk – firm of solicitors vicariously liable for clerk’s fraud as committed in the course of his employment or authority
Diplock LJ in Freeman and Lockyer (1964) re Scope of AA
“An ‘actual’ authority is a legal relationship between principal and agent created by a consensual agreement to which they alone are parties. Its scope is to be ascertained by applying ordinary principles of construction of contracts, including any prior implications from the express words used, the usages of the trade, or the course of business between the parties. To this agreement [between P and A] the contractor [X] is a stranger…”
Doesn’t say contract, only need consent
To determine terms of consesual agreemnt, look at arties’ expressed words, usages of the trade, and course of business between the parties