External Agency Relationship -- the contract between the principal and the third party Flashcards

1
Q

What are the four main ways agents make contracts?

A
  1. Agent acts for a disclosed and named principal.
  2. Agent acts for a disclosed but unnamed principal.
  3. Agent acts for an undisclosed principal
  4. Agent acts on behalf of a non-existent principal
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What happens when an agent acts for a disclosed and named principal?

A

This means that the agent is disclosing both that he is an agent and is also naming the principal.

Clear the agent is acting as a representative party. Where this is the case, a contract is created between the principal and the third party through the medium of the agent. The agent is not a party to this contract, and should not incur any liabilities to the third party.

However, this general principle must be considered in the light of the presumption that the party signing a written contract is bound by that contract (so if I sign a contract “John Smith” there is a presumption that the signor is bound by the contract). Thus where an agent signs a contract they must overcome this presumption.

This presumption can be difficult to overturn. See Stewart v Shannessy (1900)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Stewart v Shannessy (1900)

A

Shannessy looked to employ Stewart for two companies for which Shannessy was himself an agent.
Letter written on the headed paper of one of the companies Shannessy was an agent for - signed JJ Shannessy (his own name).
Stewart raises an action against S for payments due for work carried out as the representative. Shannessy said he is simply an agent and must look to the company (principal) to get paid. The Inner House argued that Shannessy was personally liable as the letter was signed by him in his own name without any qualification - no indication that S did not intend to bind himself personally in this letter. Presumption where if you sign a document you are bound by it.

⁃ Thus the agent must make it clear they are acting on behalf of the client. Methods of signature by the agent to rebut this presumption include writing e.g. “For and on behalf of Tesco PLC” or “per procuration”. It is thus possible to rebut this presumption by making clear that the agent is signing in a representative capacity. Methods of signature by the agent to rebut this presumption.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Digby Brown & Co v Lyall

A

A letter was signed by a firm of solicitors. The obligations set out in the letter were stated to be on behalf of our client. On that basis the court did not find that the firm were personally liable. The key with written documents is to be very clear that when signing as an agent you make it clear you are signing in a representative capacity (I.e. You are not binding yourself but the principal - use language such as “for” and “on behalf of”).

If an agent is acting on behalf of a disclosed and named principal - the agent does not generally form part of the contract and the principal and third party are contracting parties. Person signing must be careful not to personally bind themselves.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Brebner v Henderson 1925

A

**Use of descriptions such as ‘director’ or ‘secretary’ may not be sufficient to overcome the presumption.

An agent will likely want to rebut this presumption. This can be difficult to do. In this case, two parties signed document with their titles after their signatures. This was not enough. The inner house held that those who signed the deeds were reliable. In the courts view, adding the words director (e.g) were descriptive only. What is important is to make clear the basis on which you are signing for and on behalf of the principle.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Stone & Rolf Ltd v Kimber Coal Co 1926)

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What happens when an agent acts for a disclosed but unnamed principal?

A

This occurs when it is unclear who the agent is acting for - the principal has not been identified. There is little Scots authority on this issue.

The authority we do have points towards it being dependent upon whose credit (i.e. financial reputation) the third party relied upon when he entered into the contract: did the third party look to the credit of the agent, or to the credit of an unknown principal? Whose financial status was he looking at when entering into contract? This could be indicative of who the parties to the contract are.

In this case the agent discloses that they are an agent but doesn’t name the principal. In certain commercial situations this practice is quite common. There isn’t much Scottish case law on the point and there are two competing theories as to what is going on.

The main question is who is bound in this contract. Is it the principal and the third party, despite the fact the principal isn’t named or is it the principal and the agent? The following case gives one method of determining this question: Lamont, Nisbet v Hamilton 1907

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Lamont, Nisbet v Hamilton 1907

A

⁃ Looks to the idea of credit or financial standing. The court in this case suggested that in order to determine who is bound one must ask who’s financial reputation did the third party rely on when they entered the contract. If the third party was relying on the agent’s financial reputation then it is probable that a contract is formed between the third party and the agent. But if the third party is relying on the financial reputation of the unknown principal then it is likely that the contract is formed between the third party and the unknown principal.
- The pursuers were insurance brokers. They had effective insurance over a ship that belongs to defenders on the instructions of the management agent of the ship. The managing agents became bankrupt and the broker looked to sue the owner for the insurance premiums he had laid out. Held: owner was not liable since even though it was clear to insurance brokers that managing agents was acting in a representative capacity for the owner - the insurers had not looked at the credit of the owners at all - only the agents, so they could only look to the agents to be paid. (??) [Look this case up].*

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Ferrier v Dods (1865)

A

This is a conflicting earlier case.

⁃ A horse was sold at auction for an unnamed principal (the auctioneer was the agent, the owner of the horse was the principal). The horse was ‘defective’. The buyer who bought the horse chose to return the horse to the principal. …

  • Who the third party elects to be the contracting party rather than looking to the credit of the party (?).
  • Ferrier purchased a horse at an auction. It was clear that auctioner was acting as agent for owner BUT owners name was not disclosed. Ferrier said that the horse was essentially a duff (not sound) and he raised an action against the auctioneer and the principal (who had now been disclosed) - he sought for the price he paid for the horse.
  • As well as raising the action,he physically returned the horse to the owner. The court said: purchaser was not entitled to sue the auctioneer (agent) and owner (principal). You cannot sue both (?). But by having taken the horse back to owner it appears he elected to sue the principal.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Ruddy v Monte Marco [2008]

A

Inner house case in 2008 which favoured the Lamont approach:

Looks to credit and financial standing. Here the IH found to escape personal liability under the contract the agent must show he expressly or impliedly negated that personal liability. It was evident that the pursuer did not trust to the credit of the agent but to the credit of the unidentified principal. It had to be very clear that the third party was looking to the credit of the principal.

Essentially two ways in which we might determine the effect of the agent acting as an agent for an unnamed principle:

  1. Whose credit did the third party look to
  2. The creditor is bound by this idea as an election
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What happens when an agent acts for an undisclosed principal?

A

The agent may act on behalf of a principal, but this fact may be concealed from the third party. From the third party’s perspective, the ‘agent’ appears to be a principal. The agent is not disclosing that he is an agent and therefore not disclosing there is a principal. A contract is then formed between the agent and the third party., and the third party considers that his or her contracting party is the agent.

However, the principal can decide to disclose his or her existence at a later stage. So initially the third party is unaware that there is a principal. Following disclosure, the principal may choose to sue the third party under the contract formed by the agent. The third party may also (once aware of the principal's existence) choose to sue either the principal or the agent. Once disclosed the principal can sue the third party and the third party can choose who he sues. ⁃	But there is no assignation of the contract so it seems to go against the general rules of contract law. The only explanation is that it is a commercial concept that has arisen out of commercial convenience.

Why is this allowed? The courts tend to feel that in most commercial contracts it doesn’t actually matter who performs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Meier v Küchenmeister (1881) 8 R 642

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bennett v Inveresk Paper Co (1891) 18 R 975

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 2 All ER 199

A

??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Rolls Royce Power Engineering plc v Ricardo Consulting Engineers Ltd [2003] EWHC 2871, [2004] 2 All ER Comm 129 (especially paras 55-58)

A

Rolls Royce argued that a subsidiary … entered into a contract with Cargo and by entering into this contract Allan was not RR …
Court said: this contract was manifestly not one of a commercial contract
Evidence was led in this case to show that the nature of the services provided …
The contract was one in which is was inconceivable that the identities of the contracting parties was not significant to one another. So they cannot emerge at a later date since it is material to the contract?? The principal was excluded from intervening (Look this case up**).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

The Jascon 5 Inc [2006] EWCA Civ 889, [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 195 (especially paras 23-36)

A

??

17
Q

When may the principal be excluded from intervening?

A

Following normal rules of interpretation of the contract, the terms indicate, either expressly or by implication, that there is no concealed principal; the terms of the contract itself may identify this.
if delectus personae is present; where the third party selected the agent for their particular skills or experience then that will rule out intervention by the undisclosed principal at a later date.
possibly also if concealment of the principal was intended as a deception of the third party. English case law is conflicting:

18
Q

Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926] Ch 932

A

This case involved an undisclosed principal because he knew the third party will not contract with him.Later the seller (Randall) purports to cancel this contract. Dyster seeks specific performance of contract. Randall claimed D had deceived him (as one of grounds for cancellation). Court said: unless possession of one of the contracting parities was a material ingredient of the party then there was no defence to an action for specific performance - even though D knew that if he had disclosed himself as purchaser then R wouldn’t have entered into it. Court said it did not matter as personal qualities did not matter in this particular contract (selling of land).

And contrast this with: Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497.

19
Q

Said v Butt [1920] 3 KB 497.

A

Said desired to go to the first night of a play being performed. He had made comments about the theatre staff and knew he would not get a ticket. He obtained the ticket through a friend without disclosing Said as the principal. Said is refused admission and he claimed damages for breach of contract. He afield. Court held: non disclosure of Said as principal was a material element of the contract. It was important who the other party to the contract might be. There is doubt about the authority of this case. The judgment also looks at error and mistake…it is often quoted on as not being authority.
The agent will thus be the contracting party in the above cases. It makes it clear the parties would only have contracting with each other.
There is conflicting authority about whether in cases where the principal has been concealed from the third party - because they know the third party will not contract with them.

20
Q

What is election and what is it used for?

A

As mentioned, if the third party somehow finds out about the principal then he is able to choose (elect) to sue either the agent or the principal. An election, once made, is final. Liability between the agent and the principal is alternative, not joint and several.

Election takes place some way down the line. Raising an action is not enough to constitute an election. Election takes place once they’ve given a decree.

21
Q

When may the principal be barred from electing?

A

There are some controls over election so the principal may be barred from acting in this way if:
⁃ following normal rules of interpretation of the contract, the terms indicate, either expressly or by implication, that there is no concealed principal;
⁃ if delectus personae is present;
⁃ possibly also if concealment of the principal was intended as a deception of the third party. English case law is conflicting, see Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926][

22
Q

Dyster v Randall & Sons [1926][

A

This case is more recognisable as representing the principal than Said.] and Said v Butt [1920][ Situation in which a theatre critic criticised the manager of a theatre. The theatre critic is desperate to get a ticket for a new performance. He knows that they aren’t going to sell it to him. So he uses an agent to buy the ticket. The critic turns up at the performance and is not admitted. The judgement is unclear but the court held that the theatre critic could not act as an undisclosed principal but this seems to have been a case on its facts so it isn’t a very strong precedent

23
Q

A F Craig & Co v Blackater 1923 SC 472, 1923 SLT 240

A

??

24
Q

David Logan & Sons v Schuldt (1903) 10 SLT 598

A

??

25
Q

British Bata Shoe Co v D M Shah Ltd 1980 SC 311

A

??

26
Q

What happens when an agent acts on behalf of a non-existent principal?

A

Where the principal does not exist as a legal identity. There needs to be a principle for ratification. The external effect when this happens can be seen in certain older cases and those cases which suggest that where an agent acts for a non-existent principal, that agent may become personally bound in a contract with a third party: This occurred in the two cases -
⁃ McMeekin v Easton (1889) AND
⁃ Cromarty Leasing Ltd v Turnbull 1988

27
Q

McMeekin v Easton (1889) AND Cromarty Leasing Ltd v Turnbull 1988

A

In these cases the principals were unincorporated associations[ These CANNOT have legal personality thus ‘do not exist’ so the agent must become personally bound with the third party.], and thus lacked contractual capacity. Arguably therefore the parties intended the agent to be personally bound, knowing that the principal could not be bound.

28
Q

Thomson v Victoria Eighty Club (1905)

A

??

29
Q

Halifax v DLA Piper LLP [2009].

A

In this case a solicitor acting on behalf of a non-existent client (a consortium which was never formed) was found not to be personally liable given that none of the parties intended that the solicitor be personally bound. The reason was that it could not be said that there was an intention to make the solicitor personally bound - so the cases on unincorporated associations were distinguished. [LM not completely convinced by this judgement]. Where you have an agent who acts on behalf of a non-existent principle the issue as to who is bound might come down to the intention of the parties.