The Authority of Agents Flashcards
What are the facts of Barry, Ostiere and Shepherd Ltd v Edinburgh Cork Importing Co [1909]?
What type of authority does this case illustrate?
An order was placed through one of the defendant company’s salespersons and the order was not fulfilled. The defendant argued that the salesperson had no authority to conclude the contract. The Court rejected this argument and said that it is normal practice for a salesperson to accept and place order.
This case illustrates implied authority.
The agent in this case was head shepherd. his duty was to superintend other farm workers, however, on one occasion he bought sheep. The court held that the shepherd was personally liable for ordering the sheep from the third party because he was appointed specifically for superintending other farm workers, not purchasing sheep on behalf of his principal. Which case is being described here and what point does it illustrate?
Morrison v Statter and this shows the authority of the agent.
What are the facts of Watteau v Fenwick?
The plaintiff was the supplier of cigars to the defendant. The cigars were bought by the manager of a beer house for the business, however, the manager was only authorised to purchase lager and mineral water. The plaintiffs supplied the cigars and credited them to the manager. On discovering that the defendants were the real owners of the business and not the manager, the plaintiff sued the defendants for the value of the goods. The High Court held that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action. The principals are liable for all the acts usually conferred on an agent of that type, even if the agent exceeded the authority actually granted to him.
A manager of a hydropathic establishment barricaded a lady guest in a room with the intention of solving a dispute between her and other guests. The defendant company argued that because the manager was not acting within the scope of his employment that the principal was not liable. The court held that although the manager was not directed to barricade the woman in the room, it was implied that the manager was an agent of his employer and so the principal was liable to the third party,
What case is being described here?
Mackenzie v Cluny Hill Hydropathic.
What are the facts of Panorama Developments Ltd v Fidelis Furnishing Limited?
The plaintiffs ran a car hire business. The defendant company employed a secretary called Bayne and Bayne hired cars from the plaintiffs for the defendant’s business. The plaintiffs sent hiring agreements naming Bayne as the hirer. Bayne then used the cars for himself and the hire charges were never paid. When the plaintiffs sued for the outstanding charges the defendant’s denied liability. The court said that the forms of hiring agreement had to be looked at along with correspondence but that these did not replace the contract that was made by Bayne on behalf of the defendants. It was held that Bayne had ostensible authority to enter into contracts and so the defendants must pay.
What happened in Bolton Partners Limited v Lambert?
An offer of purchase was made by Lambert who was an agent of Bolton partners. The agent was not authorised to make such an offer but his offer was accepted anyway. Bolton partners went to ratify the order, however, Lambert had withdrawn it before they could do so. Bolton partners raised an action for performance of contract. The court upheld that the offer had been withdrawn before it had been ratified.
What aspect of authority does Bolton Partners Limited v Lambert illustrate?
Authority by ratification.
What are the facts of International Sponge Importers v Andrew Watt and Sons?
What aspect of the authority of the agent does this illustrate?
Cohen was a travelling salesman and was authorised to sell sponges on behalf of International Sponge Importers Limited. Cohen was a regular caller to Watt & Sons. Normally Watt & Sons made direct payment to International Sponge Importers by sending them a cheque. On a few occasions Cohen had collected cheques from Watt & Sons which were payable to International Sponge Importers. On four instances Cohen had also persuaded Watt & Sons to pay cheques made out to Cohen or pay him in cash. Cohen eventually absconded with money owed to International Sponge Importers. Both the Court of Session and the House of Lords held that International Sponge Importers could not recover the lost money from Watt & Sons. Watt & Sons were entitled to conclude from the earlier course of dealings that Cohen did have the authority to accept payment personally.
This illustrates apparent/ostensible authority.
What are the facts of Tinnevelly Sugar Refining Co v Mirrlees Watson and Yaryan Co Ltd?
What aspect of authority does this case illustrate?
Two men bought machinery from Mirrlees Watson, saying that they were acting on behalf of the Tinnevelly company. The company was not formed until two weeks later. The machinery supplied turned out to be defective and the Tinnevelly company (which had now been registered) attempted to sue on the basis of the defects. It was held that Tinnevelly had no rights under the original “contract” because it was not a party to the contract and so could not ratify the actions of the two agents.
This case illustrates some of the requirements for ratification of apparent or ostensible authority.
