B4 - Relations with 3P Flashcards
Re International Contract Co, Pickering’s Claim
Disclosed Agency. If the principal is named as a party to the contract in a deed and it is executed in their name, the P can sue and be sued.
Moody v Condor Insurance
Disclosed Agency. The P can sue 3P on a deed which is not inter partes, if the P is a covenantee.
Harmer v Armstrong
Disclosed Agency. If the A executes a deed as a trustee for the P, P can sue the 3P on the deed.
Powers of Attorney Act 1971
Amended by Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989. Where the A was appointed by POA and executes a deed while acting within the scope of their authority, even if the deed is in the agent’s name, P may sue on it.
Law of Property Act 1925
Even though the P is not named as aparty to the conveyance or instrument, they may still acquire an interest in land or other property, or the benfit of any condition, right of entry, covenant or agreement over or respecting land or other property.
Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999
Even if a P is not a party to a deed and the deed is not executed in their name, if the deed contains a term which says that the P could sue, or the term confers a benefit on the P, the P could sue the 3P
Bills of Exchange Act 1882
A principal cannot be made liable on a bill of exchange unless they have signed it. However, the P will be liable on a bill of exchange if their signature is written on it by an authorized person. IF the A signs a bill with the P’s name, P is bound.
Montgomerie v United Mutual Steamship
General Rule of relations with 3P - Disclosed Agency. Generally, where an agent makes a contract on behalf of a disclosed P, the A cannot sue nor be sued on the contract, because the 3P knew exactly who he was contracting withn. The general rule is that with regards to A, where the A contracts on behalf of the P, the contract is with the P, and not with the A, and the only person who may sue or be sued is the P. The A, ‘drops out’ of the transaction, and cannot sue or be sued on it in disclosed agency. Montgomerie was part-owner of a ship which he insured with the defending company, and it was effected by an A of his with that association. There was damage, and Montgomerie sued, but it was held he could not sue because his A was the party to the contract in that case, and he was an undisclosed P.
Cases where the A will be liable
A is a party to the Agreement, A is party to a deed, A signs a bill of exchange; a trade custom makes the A liable; where A is the real P; where A has a collateral contract with the 3P. A may be liable on the main contract with the 3P or on a collateral contract; for breach of warranty of authority; and in tort. An A may be liable on a C in writing where they have signed the C in their own name without anything to indicate they are signing as A; or they have signed as A but without qualification as to their personal liability. Where A signs and states that they are signing sole as A, they are not liable. Generally, A or P is liable, exceptionally they could both be liable.
Butwick v Grant
Settlement with the A. Where the A is acting on behalf of a disclosed P and the P settles with the A, he will have settled with the 3P. 3P is estopped from suing the P. The P is bound by the 3P making payments as long as the A had actual or apparent authority to receive payments on behalf of the P. If the A is not authroised to receive payment, but the 3P pays the A, as long as the A pays P back, 3P is no longer liable (because taking the money from the A was ratification).
Barker v Greenwood
Where P is disclosed, 3P can set up against the pricnipal defenses arising from the contract and defenses available against the P. The 3P cannot plead against the P any defense or set off available against the A personally and unconnected with the C, unless set-off has been authorized by the P.
Lloyd v Grace
If the A has made a misrepresentation to the 3P and the P instigated or raitfied it, 3P can sue the P. The P will be liable to 3P if making the misrepresentations is within the agent’s actual or apparent authority. EVEN IF THE A WAS ACTING FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT RATHER THAN THE P’S.
Refuge Assurance v Kettlewell
When the A’s misrepresentation is within their actual or apparent authority, the P is liable, even if he didn’t know about it.
Lloyd v Grace (second point).
When the A’s misrepresentation is within their actual or apparent authority, the P is liable, even if he didn’t know about it, and EVEN IF THE A WAS ACTING FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT RATHER THAN THE P’S.
Armstrong v Srain
IF the A made an innocent misrepresentation and the P would have known it was false, P is not liable for deceit if they were unaware that the A had made it.
