An agent was defined by L. Alverstone in The Queen v Kane as ‘any person who happens to act on behalf of another’. In the situation between Chris and Ken the agency was created by an express oral agreement between the principal and an agent. K was authorised to act on C’s behalf to find out the best price obtainable for a bag of gemstones. C limited K’s authority with no authorisation given for the actual sale of chattels. If an agent acts outside his actual authority, he may be liable to his principle for the breach of contract and to the third party for a breach of implied warranty of authority. However, the situation where the principle is not disclosed and there is no written contract as such, the principal might have to bear the losses …show more content…
2(1) of Factors Act 1889 is likely to be the most appropriate, and therefore should be used by D in order to assert her ownership of gems against C. Under s.1(1) FA, mercantile agent is defined as ‘having in the customary course of his business as such agent authority either to sell goods, or to consign goods for the purpose of sale, or to buy goods, or to raise money on the security goods. ‘In order to be considered a mercantile agent in law, the label is not of the essence, as it is a matter of substance. Section 21(2)(a) SGA expressly preserves the FA s.2(1) and sets out the requirements of mercantile agency. A person in question must be independent from the person for whom he is agent, K is acting independently from C. K was also in actual possession of the goods during the sale to D, with consent of the owner,satisfying both requirements. Mercantile agent must be dealing with the goods in the ordinary course of business of mercantile agents generally. The sale to D was made during the business hours; from business premises and Ken was acting in such a way as D would expect a mercantile agent to act, therefore satisfying the requirement of ‘ordinary course of business’ under Oppenheimer. Third party must acquire goods in good faith and without knowledge that mercantile agent lacked authority to sell them. Even though the gemstones were sold for a ‘bargain price’, there is no evidence to suggest that D was acting in bad …show more content…
SGA 1979 s. 2(1) defines a contract for the sale of goods as one in which ‘the seller transfers or agrees to transfer the property in goods to the buyer for a money consideration, called the price.’ As with regards to the statute, Daniele has satisfied the duty to ‘deliver’ the watch to Mark, however M did not satisfy his duty of the buyer to pay the price as his cheque appeared to be worthless. D has been deceived by a worthless cheque, therefore, the title is voidable void and the original owner has good title again if he/she takes steps in voiding the title. However, D might find herself in some difficulty trying to assert the ownership of the watch as the the chattel was resold and the original buyer has
The contract was created to be lawful, not intentional to be illegal b. Knowingly and willfully acts, a required element of AKS, was not the basis of the initial of the contract c. Smith Kline did not solicit remuneration from the partners Cons that support that Hanlester should be viewed as
“Agency relationships are formed by the mutual consent of a principal and an agent.” (Cheeseman, p.487) Our book goes on to cite the Restatement (Second) of Agency,
The courts stated that the statue of frauds purpose is to suppress fraud for instances cooked up claims of agreement, sometimes fathered by wish, imagined in the light of subsequent events and sometimes simply conjured up. In this case per the verbal contact that both parties had agreed to regarding that the Suttons could at any time during the first five years buy the property, but when the Werner’s reneged on the agreement, the Sutton’s sued and the Werner’s defended by alleging that the verbally agreement between both parties was not valid because there was not written contract. This was not ethical on the Werner’s behalf because the only reason that they reneged on the agreement was due to the increase value of the property, had the property depreciated or gone down in value the Werner’s would have acted or thought differently as this was not discussed in the beginning. In this case the doctrine of part performance, which states that if an oral contract for the sale of land or transfer another interest in real property to be specifically performed if it has been partially performed and performance is necessary to avoid injustice could be applied due to
Freight brokers are the logistical key between shippers and carriers. Being a freight broker is a rewarding, but challenging career. However, you need a lot of skills and knowledge in order to become a successful transportation broker. Keep reading to learn why freight brokers need formal training.
In Palgo Holdings v Gowans , the High Court considered the distinction between a security in the form of a pawn or pledge and a security in the form of a chattel mortgage. The question was whether section 6 of the Pawnbrokers and Second-hand Dealers Act 1996 (NSW) (‘the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act’) extended to a business that structured its loan agreements as chattel mortgages. In a four to one majority (Kirby J dissenting) the High Court found that chattel mortgages fell outside the ambit of section 6 of the 1996 Pawnbrokers Act. However, beyond the apparent simplicity of this decision, the reasoning of the majority raises a number of questions. Was it a “turning back to literalism” as Kirby J suggested, or was it simply a case where the court declares that parliament has missed its target?
There are two rules/principles of law that apply to agents like Dortmund and his actions. The first legal principle has to do with whether or not Dortmund had the actual authority to make a deal with GB. Actual authority is the authority that is specifically set out in an agency contract where the principal authorizes an agent to act on its behalf. Additionally, actual authority may also be granted less formally through an oral delegation of authority by a principal. Dortmund could only have actual authority if his contract gave him the authority to make a deal like that with GB. The second legal principal that should be considered is whether or not Dortmund had apparent authority. Apparent authority exists when the principal creates the impression that the agent is authorized to act on the principal 's behalf. A principal can give apparent authority through conversation, but also through official job titles and positions (if they give the reasonable impression
Fiona was a friend of David and told him she could fix it. Fiona misplaced the watch so David decided to sue Fiona. I have ruled that Fiona is liable for the misplacing the watch and therefore must pay David 500,000$. It is appropriate that Fiona should be found liable because she was responsible for the watch after she agreed to fix it. Waldron would find this case unjust because the exact price of the watch is not 500,000$. Even though people lose things all the time under these circumstances that watch was of special value. I have ruled that Fiona is liable for the 500,000$ because the price of the watch does not determine the value to David, it was a family heirloom and held sentimental
Akin to Bahr v Nicolay, by notice of the Stan’s interest in the property and gave the promise to honour the agreement, Stan’s interest constituted an equitable interest in the land. Ron became subject to a constructive trust in favour of Stan. If Ron repudiates the unregistered interest after registration, he is, in equity’s eye, acting fraudulently and he may be compelled to honour the unregistered
the act he actually did perform, and (b) if the agent had chosen to perform the
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
The legal issue of constitution of trusts is very important, judicial decisions over the years on cases where trusts were not properly constituted indicates that constitution of trusts could be quite complex and must be very cautiously done by a property owner as a simple factor could make his trust void. An express trust is completely constituted either by effectively transferring property to trustees or by effectively declaring a trust. In case of personal property, the declaration of the trust may be put in writing; however, equity will not perfect an imperfect gift. It is only when the trust is constituted that it is binding on the settlor. The long-standing idea that equity will not perfect an imperfect gift can be traced back to the 19th century cases of Ellison v Ellison and Milroy v Lord , and was further emphasized in the 20th century in the case of Re Fry .
The plaintiff firm of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defects after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business 'the buying of cars must form at the very least an integral part of the buyer's business or a necessary incidental thereto'. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be said to be on equal footing with his seller in terms of bargaining strength.
Agency Theory or Principal Agent Theory is the relationship that involved the contractual link between the shareholders (the principals) that provide capital to the company and the management (agent) who runs the company. The principals will engage the agent to carry out some services on their behalf and would normally delegate some decision-making authority to the agents. However, as the number of shareholders and the complexity of operations grew, the agent, who had the expertise and essential knowledge to operate the business and company tend to increasingly gained effective control and put them in a position where they were prone to pursue their own interests instead of shareholder’s interest.
An agency relationship is formed between two parties when one party (the agent) agrees to represent another party (the principal). Normally, all employees who deal with third parties are considered agents. Principal-Agent relationships are defined as the understanding that the agent will act for and on behalf of the principal. (Cheeseman) The agent assumes an obligation of loyalty to the principal that he will follow the principal’s instructions and will neither intentionally nor negligently act improperly in the performance of the act. An agent cannot take personal advantage of the business opportunities the agency position uncovers. A principal-agent relationship is fiduciary, meaning these obligations bring forth a fiduciary relationship of trust and confidence. As such, an agency relationship is governed by employment law.
The principal/agent relationship is a sensitive kind of relation. The agent has the obligation to obey the rules that are formed by the principals, direct the actions to achieve the organization’s goals, create public value, and be loyal to the principals by not performing according to self-interest. However, the agent is responsible to conduct ethical behavior while doing the required job. Agent is accountable also to serve the public according to their expectations, yet agent has to be ethical in applying the rules. The problem in the principal/agent relation starts when the principal is not ethical as it might seems serve self-interests instead of serving the public or might cause some harm to others. Thus, the principal is having the higher authority and the agent is having the obligation of following rules and at the same time maintains the public trust. This situation is considered to be ...