Agency. Express Actual Authority

On the one hand it is evident that terms implied at common law can be ‘implied in law’ or ‘implied in fact’. Terms implied as a matter of fact are said to give effect to unexpressed intentions of the

It was a term of the contract that the agent was not to sell goods supplied by anyone other than the principal. The agent sold other goods and was dismissed.

Contractual capacity is defined by the law to mean the ability to understand the consequences of a contract.

• Whether the term fixture was defined in the sale agreement as items “affixed to land”.

The decision of the tribunal was that the appellant was found guilty of having acted with dishonesty when he relied on the documents, but not when he created them, here he was charged with lack of integrity. The court had to therefore consider what the definition of the words ‘dishonesty’ and ‘integrity’ was.

It is argued, that the imposition of this rigid structure would only undermine the settlor’s wishes and result in the courts finding the trust to be administratively unworkable. It has been stated in Re Manisty’s Settlement “that a power cannot be uncertain merely because it is wide in

For a company to transact with third parties and to enter into valid business dealings there must be a valid contract concluded in order to create legally binding obligations enforceable between the company and the third party. For a contract to be valid the company must have the requisite legal capacity to enter into the contract and the directors or officers representing the company must have the authority to act on its behalf. Within company law, capacity and authority are interrelated principles however it is important to note that each is an entirely different and separate legal concept from the other. Capacity relates to the legal competency and the powers of the company while authority relates to the power of a company's director or officer to act on behalf of the

“The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion;”

MS. BRIE'S AUTHORITY TO CONSENT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS BECAUSE THE SEARCHING OFFICERS REASONABLY RELIED ON CLEAR INDICATIONS THAT SHE HAD MUTUAL USE OF THE SHOEBOX AND, EVEN IF HER AUTHORITY WAS AMBIGUOUS, SUCH AMBIGUITY SHOULD NOT DEFEAT HER APPARENT AUTHORITY BECAUSE ALLOWING IT TO DO SO WOULD IMPOSE AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN ON POLICE OFFICERS THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO THEIR JOBS EFFECTIVELY.

I. Whether the district court correctly held that a third-party’s authority to consent to a search of a shoebox was not ambiguous when she gave officers clear indications of mutual access to and use of the shoebox and, even if the third-party’s authority had been ambiguous, such ambiguity would not defeat her apparent authority because allowing it to do so would impose an unreasonable burden on police officers?

The majority opinion undermined the parol evidence rule, rendered suspect instruments of conveyance absolute on their face, materially lessened the reliance which might be placed upon written instruments, and opened the door to new technique of defrauding

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

In the statement, it is mentioned that the great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions. A case to illustrate this point would be W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39 (CFA).

in criminal law and Beckett Ltd v. Lyons [1967] 1 All ER 833 the law

The author argues that the operation of Belize test should be understood as: A term has to be fit in either of the traditional test, but before the implication, it has to be checked by Belize that is in congruence with the reasonable interpretation of the contract as a whole. However, there are some fears that the role of necessity has been trumped by reasonableness in Belize that will consequently lead to the court making the contract for the parties. The preliminary issue is how should we understand “necessity”. Some say it is necessary to make the contract work. Some others propose that it is meant to give effect to the intention of the parties. To uphold the principle of freedom of contract, the court must give effect to what the contractual parties intended therefore the court does not inquire into the subjective intention of the either party. In Liverpool City Council and Philips both stress the importance of necessity. Yet we should be careful in both cases they did not nevertheless totally eliminated the role of reasonableness. The difficult here lies in how the court could