Agency 2 Flashcards

Question

Armagas Ltd v Mundogas Ltd [1986] 2 All ER 385 in short?

Answer 1

‘Ostensible general authority can, however, never arise where the contractor knows that the agent's authority is limited…’

Answer 2

Baskind p.100: must T have altered position to his detriment? are (ii) and (iii) separate elements? - many cases say there needs to be but there also saying that there doesn’t need to be detriment it is enough 3rd party relied on that parituclar rep, but on top of that don’t have to prove det or suffered loss because of that reliance. - can the seperate elements be regarded as one?- so if relied on rep can we just say assume altered pos-issue to talk about

Answer 3

Best known cases on apparent auth is freeman which illustrates point of what extensive or apparent auth as compared to what looking at earlier with actual auth

Answer 4

Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480: K a director of BPPL, hired architects to act for the company. BPPL refused to pay their fees. F &L entitled to rely on [K’s] ostensible authority to give them instructions on behalf of BPPL: there was a holding out of K by BPPL as its agent to conduct its business within the ordinary scope of that business. BPPL knew of and acquiesced in K’s professing to act on its behalf: impliedly representing that he has the company's authority to do so. BPPL ‘is considered to have made the representation, or caused it to be made, or at any rate to be responsible for it.’  as against F&L, which had altered position in reliance on the representation, BPPL estopped from denying the truth of the representation.

Answer 5

- company is principal - k is agent and he hires claimant who affirm of architects to provide services application of planning permisision, acrhitest do work but company wont pay and say that k had no auth to enter contract therefore not bound to pay freeman, t court concluded: yes k had excercised apparent auth an therefore company was bound, and with apparent auth = there is rep by principal (company) which isn’t easy company has no person its a legal entitity so we look at board of directors as whole,they rep that k was some1 with auth to act for them in matters relating to prop devlop, and specifically company had done this by effectively allowing k to be the person who frequently admitted company 2 major contracts on his own initiative without consulting other directors and then report later date what he had done, so bc other directors knew that k did without prior agreement, other directors were treated as having rep on behal company that had auth and therefore company could not deny that k had that auth, k made that rep lockyer relied on that rep they had been lead to provide those services for the companya dnt ehy ahad altered their positon in snes e that they had provided eserives probably wouldn’t have and thereofr company bound= NOW ESTOPPED FROM DENYING that k had any auth to engage architects -

Answer 6

Summers v Solomon (1857) El&BL 879 SS’s jeweller’s shop in Sussex managed by AS. AS ordered jewellery several times from plaintiff. AS travelled to London and purported to buy jewellery on behalf of SS, which he appropriated. The question is, not what was the actual relation between [SS] and [AS], but whether [SS] had not so conducted himself as to make the plaintiff suppose [AS] to be [SS’s] general agent. What passes between [SS] and [AS] cannot limit the [SS’s] liability to the plaintiff. ‘ …As soon as you have given the agent authority to pledge your credit, you render yourself liable to parties who have acted upon notice of such authority…’

Answer 7

- Had jewlers shop in essex and allowed nephew to manage it, and Abraham solom was one who freq placed orders for jewlerry with mr summers from London so from sussex Abraham managed his uncles shop with all the jewlerry freq and pay for jewellery when recivevd on behalf of his uncle his principle. - at some point gets idea in head that hes going to travel to London and buy some jewl directly from mr summer having done that apparent on behalf of mr Solomon he then decides actually going to keep jewlerry for himself so uncle principal didn’t get that jewl and yet mr summer came to claim payment from him. - Question was wehter mr solmon was bound by this transaction. Clearyl there was no actual auth that Abraham had to buy that jewl, no expressed auth no implied auth to buy the jewl directly from mr summers in London q was did he have apparent auth and could that appar auth be based on previous dealings which ahd taken place btw them, looking at history of dealigns btw parties, the fatc that mr summers had seen abrah reg place orders for jewleryy which paid for, mr summers was aware that abrah was person responsible for placing orders within shop which had preiviousl been honoured, - it meant that mr summers was entitled to assumer when abra showed up in London that ajd apparent auth so basically that previous course of dealings mr summers was entitled tos assume that Abraham ahad apparent auth to buy jewl directly. So in this sense aswell this means that rep is not only just 1 rep u can have rep that’s built up through course of dealings btw principle and third party and the agent okay so based on that course of dealings regardless of the real rels and any auth ab had, mr summers was entitled to continue on the assumption that Abraham was his uncles general agent, and he couldn’t be bound by any limitation on abra auth cos he was no aware of them. 7 - So where u have allowed someone1 to act general agent in that way its easier to create that impression of apparent auth , so if ur in that posiotn of a principle again u want to be clear at the extent to which u would define scope of agents auth not only directly btw u and agent but also In such a way third parties are aware of that limitation.

Answer 8

Usual auth - only has short case which many people have tried to put a spin on Watteau v Fenwick

Answer 9

F let H run hotel, forbade him to buy cigars. W gave credit to H for items incl. cigars, sued F for value of the goods. ‘no holding out, as the plaintiff knew nothing of the defendant’ ‘The cigars, however, were such as would usually be supplied to and dealt in at such an establishment.’ ‘the principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character...’

Answer 10

Mr fenick owned hotel and he allowed his agent h to run that hotel, and for all tends and prupsoes seemed hotel actually belonged to humble bc his name as above door etc etc but the only limitation mr humble put auth was that he could not buy cigars, u can by as many supplies to run hotel but wont be able to buy cigars, mr wat freq dealt with this, agent sold him various items, minimal water, sold him ales, all sorts of things including cigars, so In evry auth humble had he clearly went outside that limits of that auth that ahd been inferred on him by mr finnack. At point where mr watta was selling these cigars and other supplies to mr humble he didn’t know anything about mr fenneck. So he didn’t see humble as being an agent of a principal he dealt with humblr as though humble were the p himself. Ultiamtely watt goes unpaid and he discovers that there is actually a principle in the picture he discovers the existence of mr feenek, tells going to goa fter mr feeneck and sue him for the amounts owed to him, and this is where things come usntuck bdc if mr watt sueing mr fen for payment on basis that mr humblr acted as mr fennicks agent if we think about forms of auth can we say that we was any actual forms of auth? superficially was there auth- court said not apparent as there was no rep by mr fennick that mr humblr had any auth , tere was no holding on or rep that could have been relied bc up onto point sued mr wattao didn’t even know that mr fenneck had existed he didn’t know anything about principle, so if u didn’t know about principal u cannto say principle was rep to u- so no appa auth, this means looking at other forms . In terms of expressed we can say there was no expressed actual, something told not to do, but one things courts focused on was idea that event ho this was transaction that mr humlr told not to enter into, when u look at nature purchase would fall in scope, hotel , - this meant principle bound by all acts of agent which fallw ithin scope to things relaly intrusted to that tpe o agent? So even though doesn’t have principle explcit apparent auth and it goes against what principal actual told this agent he could do, the courts still found that this fell within an agents usual auth if it fell within scope sorts of actions that usually intrusted to the agent ??then principal is bound Doesn’t make sense cos injects very broad approach of law?? Gonna have to go back, various criticms of this and people who do not critisce are people whoa re ting tomake sense of it

Answer 11

-‘the case has been almost universally criticized’ (Baskind p.100) -‘On agency reasoning the decision is virtually impossible to justify’ -Sign-O-Lite People have written very long essays in terms of debating whetehr decision invalid or not

Answer 12

Sign-O-Lite Plastics Ltd v Metropolitan Life Insurance Co (1990) 73 DLR 541, British Columbia Court of Appeal ‘It is astonishing that, after all these years, an authority of such doubtful origin, and of such unanimously unfavourable reputation, should still be exhibiting signs of life and disturbing the peace of mind of trial judges. It is surely time to end any uncertainty which may linger as to its proper place in the law of agency. I have no difficulty concluding that it is not part of the law of this province.’ - in this case rejecting it altgoether dont have to be trouble by it

Answer 13

‘As to the case of Watteau v Fenwick… it is not necessary for the purpose of today to say more about it than that I am at present not prepared to assent to it. Its correctness I observe is questioned in Lindley on Partnership (7th ed ), p 146.’ International Paper Co v Spicer (1906) 4 CLR 739 ‘The true ratio of this decision is not altogether easy to perceive…’ Rhodian River Shipping Co SA v Halla Maritime Corp [1984] BCLC 139 These are common law juris

Answer 14

, same thing in Australia, here u have a court saying well we really aren’t going to comment much on it but look on most auth texts on partnership, partnership from of agency its correctness is questioned, so were inclined to take doubtful view of it aswell.so in austrial we don’t necc consider ourselves bound to follow it and we can see that even th heavyweight sholars are not persuaded that this is actually an authoritve source so we have nor eason to follow it either. 1 of the heavy known cases in English alw questioning wehther usual auth in watt fencik is good law is radio riving shipping but idf memeory serves high ct deci- we haevent really had any high ct deci either voerril rule fenick or addressing outright if good law or not -forms of auth go this will tell us we have two forms accepted actuall and apparent auth with relevant sub divison and then u have usual auth which fits in tat but fits soemwher awkardley

Answer 15

some overlap when thinking about creation of agency (1) and what ur looking at forms of auth, so there is some overlap were talking about apaprrent auth and agency by estopel same thing here that we talked about agency, operation of law, agency by necc this isr egarded aswell as a fform of auth, we talked about agency by ratification last week, this is rearded as form of auth aswell

Answer 16

-Authority by operation of law agency by necessity -Authority by ratification Agent acting for a disclosed principal Principal in existence when contract entered into Ratification within a fixed/reasonable time

Answer 17

With auth by operaton by law – agency by necc remember that has 3 elemets that need to be sairsifed, the idea that there should be an aemrgency, should impossible to get agents instructions and that the agent should have acted in good faith.

Answer 18

- There has to be elemetns that are satisfied there, not going to repaeat and go over them, bc o these overlaps, in exam contet u wouldn’t find self in position where have to answer q on creation of agency and q of auth so if u going addres these either addressing in creation of agency conrect or auth context would have to ind sel in poston where have to duplicagte them.

Answer 19

A’s Authority enables him to affect P’s position with T Types of authority: expressly conferred by P treated by law as having been impliedly conferred on A apparent from representation by P to T that A has authority to enter into a particular transaction usually enjoyed by person in agent’s position ‘Although agency cases and texts repeatedly speak in terms of the agent’s authority, … this affords an incomplete account of agency.’ Munday

Answer 20

- so we know creation - know types - need to know these and be able to identify in exam or is there an abadonment of any of them is ther any issues attached for higher marks, some fussier than others or overlap

Agency 2 Flashcards

(44 cards)