Agency: Contract and Principal

Agency law is a relationship between a principal and in agent in which the agent is legally authorized to act on the behalf of the principal.

cheque in the amount of $4500 instead of the full $6000. In this case, the agent (Kent) did not disclose the identity of the principal to the third party (Somerset Pet Shops Ltd.), so the agent alone in this case would be liable. The third party may look to the agent for damages. The agent, by the same rule of law, would be entitled to enforce the agreement against the third party if the third party should fail to perform the agreement in accordance with its terms.

Held: He was not entitled to commission for the period when he sold other supplier's goods.

ISSUE: Is Gary Fox liable for payment of the fee and was he acting only as an agent for the

“The agency relationship is defined as ‘the fiduciary relationship which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act in his behalf and subject to his contract, and consent by the other so to act.’ Agents obligations relating to their players are defind not only by contact, but by the fiduciary characteristics of the relationship.” The agent owes his/her player a lot of things in their basic care to their player. These things include the fiduciary duty of undivided loyalty and the duty to act in good faith at all times. The player is going to entrust this agent with all of their fortune, reputation, and legal rights and responsibilities. Along with all of these duties the agent is going to have to abide by what the player wants and carry out what their desire are. This is a responsibility of the agent and it must only do what is desired by and for the player and must not carry out its own business affairs. “The agent must obey all of his/her players’ lawful instruction no matter how arbitrary or capricious any of those instructions seem to the agent or anyone else. However, if the player instructs the agent to perform something illegal, like bribe someone, the agent does not have to comply.”

Vicarious liability is a doctrine where a company is held liable for the negligent acts of the employees while the doctrine of identification supposes a situation where the crimes committed by the company can be directed towards the directors or managers of the company who are the directing mind and will of the company and can be held liable for the acts committed by a separate legal entity namely the company. In the case of Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v Nattrass, the Appellant was offering a discount on washing powder and this was advertised on posters displayed in stores, but the Defendant did not find the packet of washing powder at the reduced price, as advertised. The Defendant therefore filed a complaint under the Trade Descriptions Act, 1968 for falsely advertising the price of washing powder. In defense

3. In this situation the agent acted without authority. While Cost Club may be liable, the agent is then liable to Cost Club as he failed to receive authorization from us when he made the decision to enter into the contract. The agent is responsible for any damages if this contract is unable to be terminated.

If Seller fails to comply with this contract for any other reason, Seller will be in default and Buyer may, as Buyer's sole and exclusive remedy, terminate this contract and receive from Seller the deposit, thereby releasing both parties from the contract.

In this case, Kallessi Mc Tavish is the principal, Maya Stork is the agent and the new suppliers are the third party. Firstly, this is a case of ratification as all the requirements of ratification are met, i.e. there is a clear principal in existence. This requirement can be contradicted with the case of Kelner V Baxter 1866 LR 2 CP 174, where the directors ordered goods before the company was even formed and so could not be held to pay for the goods. Principal is in capacity. Ratification is timeous and can be contradicted with the case Goodall V Bilsland 1909 SC 1152, where the solicitor had 10 days to appeal against a license renewal of a wine merchant and won the case but the wine merchant appealed against this as the solicitor didn’t

Describe how the concept of agency affected the parties’ legal positions in the case study. Did the agents help or harm their clients? Why?

that the document did not appear to be contractual. In D J Hill and Co

Agency issues arise when one party (principal) gives another party (agent) an authority to act on his behalf. In this context, the principal is the investor while the professional hedge fund

It is within the agent’s apparent authority to sell a property on behalf of the principal to make descriptions of the property to the buyer. However, if the representations made are false, the principal will be liable for the acts of that agent where the leading case is Aliotta v Broadmeadows Bus Service Ltd (1988) A.T.P.R. 40 – 873 which the court held that the agents has mislead the plaintiff by not revealing all the material information to the plaintiff.

“Operative unilateral mistake occurs when only one party in the contract is mistaken, the other party is or should be aware of that mistake and yet he purports to proceed with the agreement anyway.”

Company Star Boat employed Tom as the manager for marketing and sales department. Being an agent for Star Boat, Tom frequently concluded contracts with a number of suppliers for acquiring certain parts to manufacture boats. Smooth Sailing was one of the suppliers. Tom resigned from Star Boat in July 2012 upon being offered a better position in Star Ferry. However, he acquired 4,000 parts from Smooth Sailing in August and manager of Smooth Sailing did not notice that in the contract Tom indicated his signature as “manager, Star Ferry” and thought they were dealing with Star Boat as usual. When Smooth Sailing later notified Star Boat to make payment, Star Boat wanted to ratify the contract.