Date post: | 24-Oct-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | fatuglycow |
View: | 614 times |
Download: | 8 times |
LAW OF AGENCY
BACHELOR OF ACCOUNTANCYLAW 385
COMMERCIAL LAW
LAW OF AGENCY• Governed by Part X of the Contracts Act 1950.• s.135 of the Contracts Act 1950 : An "agent" is a person
employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the "principal".
• Agency - relationship which subsists between a principal & an agent, where the agent has been authorized to act for the principal or represent him in dealing with others / 3rd party.
• Agent - A person who is employed by the principal to do an act on behalf of the principal or to represent the principal in dealings with the 3'd party
• Principal - A person who authorizes the agent to act on his behalf
LAW OF AGENCY
TYPES OF CONTRACT
CREATED IN AN AGENCY
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT WHERE THE AGENT DERIVES
AUTHORITY
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND THIRD PARTY TO WHOM THE AGENT
DEALS WITH
CAPACITY
CAPACITY OF PARTIES IN AN
AGENCY
PRINCIPAL: S.136 – AGE OF MAJORITY &
SOUND MIND
AGENT: S.137 – ANYONE CAN BE AN
AGENT BUT THE PRINCIPAL HOLDS RESPONSIBILITY
CHAN YIN TEE V WILLIAM JACKS & CO
(MALAYA) LTD
FORMATIONBy express
appointment
By implied appointment
By ratificationBy necessity
By the doctrine of estoppel or holding
out
AGENCY BY EXPRESS APPOINTMENT
• Section 140 Contracts Act 1950:“An authority is said to be express when it is given by
words spoken or written. An authority is said to be implied when it is to be implied from the circumstances
of the case, and things spoken or written, or in the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted
circumstances of the case.”
AGENCY BY IMPLIED APPOINTMENT
IMPLIED AGENCY
IMPLIED FROM CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE BY WORDS OR CONDUCT S.140 (Chan Yin Tee V William Jacks)
IMPLIED FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF
HUSBAND AND WIFE - REBUTTABLE
IMPLIED BY S.7 OF THE
PARTNERSHIP ACT 1961
AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
CERTIFICATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF
AN ACT DONE WITHOUT
AUTHORITY
HOW? AGENT EXCEEDS OR HAS NO AUTHORITY
PRINCIPAL CAN CHOOSE TO REJECT OR
ACCEPT S.149
CAN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED S.150
EFFECT: PRINCIPAL IS BOUND RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE
OF THE ACT BY AGENT AND NOT THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT S.149
AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
HOW? AGENT EXCEEDS OR
HAS NO AUTHORITY
PRINCIPAL CAN CHOOSE TO REJECT OR ACCEPT S.149
CAN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED S.150
EFFECT: PRINCIPAL IS
BOUND RETROSPECTIVELY FROM
THE DATE OF THE ACT BY AGENT AND
NOT THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT
S.149 (Bolton & Partners V
Lambert)CERTIFICATION OR ACCEPTANCE
OF AN ACT DONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY
CONDITIONS FOR RATIFICATION
UNAUTHORISED ACT OF AGENT
MUST BE A LEGAL – BROOK V HOOK (agent forged signature
of principal)
AGENT ACTING AS AN AGENT AND NOT IN HIS OWN NAME
(Keighley Maxted & Co V Durant – the wheat case)
PRINCIPAL MUST BE IN EXISTENCE (Kelner v Baxter -
the hotel case where the principal company was not yet
registered)
PRINCIPAL MUST HAVE CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE
ACT AND RATIFICATION (Boston Deep Sea Fishing &
Ice Co V Farnham)
ACT DONE WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS BY PRINCIPAL AT THE
TIME OF RATIFICATION S.151 (Marsh V Joseph)
RATIFICATION OF THE WHOLE ACT AND NOT PART ONLY
S.152
RATIFICATION WITHIN REASONABLE TIME
(Metropolitan Asylum Board V Kingham & Sons – kes telur)
NO INJURY OR AFFECT INTEREST OF THIRD PARTY
S.153 Illustration (b)
AGENCY BY NECESSITY/EMERGENCY
An agent has authority, in an emergency, to do all such acts for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss as would be done by a person of ordinary prudence – S.142
How? When a wife is deserted or is justified and has no means of support
Where trustee situation arises
GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY V SWAFFIELD – the lonely horse case
CONDITIONS FOR AGENCY BY NECESSITY
BEFORE AN AGENCY BY NECESSITY CAN ARISE:
MUST BE REAL AND ACTUAL EMERGENCY (Phelps James & Co V Hill – look at the danger, facilities, cost, time, distance etc)
INCONVENIENCE IS NOT AN EMERGENCY AND A SALE BY AGENT = CONVERSION (Sachs V Miklos)
AGENT ENTRUSTED WITH PRINCIPAL’S GOODS @ TRUSTEE SITUATION – S.142 (Jebarra V Ottoman Bank)
IMPOSSIBLE TO GET PRINCIPAL’S INSTRUCTION EVEN AFTER USE ALL REASONABLE DILIGENCE S.167 (Springer v Great Western Railway Co – the
stinky tomato ship case)
AGENT ACTS IN GOOD FAITH
EFFECTS OF AGENCY BY NECESSITY
AGENT PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CLAIM BY
PRINCIPAL
AGENT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT
FOR HIS EFFORTS IN PROTECTING PRINCIPAL’S
INTEREST
CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN PRINCIPAL
AND THIRD PARTY
AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL
S.180 – PRINCIPAL IS
BOUND
WHEN PRINCIPAL INDUCES 3RD PARTY TO BELIEVE A PERSON IS HIS AGENT
PRINCIPAL DOES NOT INFORM 3RD PARTY THAT
AGENCY HAS TERMINATED
FREEMAN & LOCKYER V BRUCKHURST PARK
PROPERTIES LTD –director acted on behalf of company & contracted with 3rd party
with the other directors’ knowledge
CLASSIFICATION OF AGENCY
CLASSIFICATIONACCORDING TO
EXTENT OF AUTHORITY
UNIVERSAL AGENT – HAS
EXTENSIVE POWERS,
ALMOST LIKE PRINCIPAL E.G.
POWER OF ATTORNEY
GENERAL AGENT – POWERS
NORMAL TO NATURE OF
BUSINESS OR TRADE
SPECIAL AGENT – LIMITED AND
SPECIFIC AUTHORITY
ACCORDING TO FUNCTIONS
DEL CREDERE AGENTS WHO GUARANTEE’S
3RD PARTY PERFORMANCE
FACTOR/ COMMERCIAL AGENT – SELLS GOODS UNDER HIS OWN NAME
AND HAS LIEN AS COMMISSION
BROKERS AUCTIONEERS
BANKER AS AGENT FOR
CUSTOMER AND BANK
EMPLOYEES AS AGENT FOR THE
BANK
AUTHORITY OF AGENT
TYPES OF AUTHORITY
ACTUAL AUTHORITY
EXPRESSED ORALLY OR IN WRITING
S.141
ANY NECESSARY LAWFUL ACT
ANY USUAL LAWFUL ACT
APPARENT/ OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY
ALL SUCH ACTS WHICH ARE
PROPER/ NECESSARY/ USUAL
DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES
CUSTOMS OR USAGE OF THE
TRADE
SITUATION AND CONDUCT OF
PARTIES
APPARENT OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY
PRINCIPAL BY WORDS / CONDUCT LEADS 3RD PARTY TO BELIEVE
AGENT HAS AUTHORITY – S.190
GRAPHICS LINES PTE LTD V CHAI CHEE MEIN
– Kelab Malam
AGENT PREVIOUS AUTHORITY
TERMINATED WITHOUT NOTICE TO 3RD PARTY
OVERBROOK ESTATES V GLENCOMBE
PROPERTIES LTD – auctioneer exceeded
authority
PRINCIPAL BOUND IF AGENT MAKES
MISREPRESENTATION WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY
AGENT IS ALSO LIABLE FOR
MISREPRESENTATION
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IMPLIED USUAL AUTHORITY AND APPARENT AUTHORITY
IMPLIED USUAL AUTHORITY
BASED ON INFERENCE
DRAWN FROM AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRINCIPAL & AGENT
APPARENT AUTHORITY
BASED ON REPRESENTATION MADE BY PRINCIPAL TO 3RD PARTY
IRRESPECTIVE OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT
EFFECTS OF CONTRACTS MADE BY AGENTS
CONTRACT IS BINDING ON PRINCIPAL – EFFECTS
DEPENDS WHETHER 3RD PARTY AWARE OF
EXISTENCE OF PRINCIPAL
CATEGORIES OF PRINCIPAL
NAMED PRINCIPAL
DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
NAMED PRINCIPAL
AGENT HAS NO RIGHTS/LIABILITIES
• S.183 – agent cannot personally enforce
• s.179 - Only principal can sue / be sued under the contract
• Condition: agent must act within his authority
EXCEPTIONS:
• If agent agrees to accept liability – CHIN YUEN TUNG V BEP AKETIK
• If contract is in the agent’s own name
• If agent signs negotiable instrument in his own name without disclosure of agency – KAVENA MEYDIN V KOMERAPPA CHITTY
• Agent exceeds authority and not ratified – breach of warranty
• Agent is liable under custom / norm of trade
DISCLOSED PRINCIPALAGENT HAS NO
RIGHTS/LIABILITIES
• S.183 – agent cannot personally enforce
• s.179 - Only principal can sue / be sued under the contract
• Agent presumed liable – S.183(a), (b) & (c)
• s.186 – both agent and/or /both principal may be liable
EXCEPTION #1:
• where contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods to overseas merchant;
• Merchant does not standing and credit of principal
• Contract is vide local agent
• No privity of contract unless expressed in agreement
EXCEPTIONS #2
• Name of principal not disclosed
• Agent remains liable even if/after 3rd party discovers principal
• Agent can be released by 3rd party
EXCEPTIONS #3:
• Even if principal disclosed – cannot be sued/immunity
• e.g. sovereign, ambassador, minor, unsound mind
UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPALWHERE AGENT HAS AUTHORITY TO BIND
PRINCIPAL
• IDENTITY OR EXISTENCE OF PRINCIPAL NOT DISCLOSED
RIGHTS OF 3RD PARTY
• CAN CLAIM AGENT/ PRINCIPAL – S.186
• AGENT CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE – PERNAD TRADING SDN BHD V PERSATUAN PELADANG BAKTI MELAKA (Kes Baja)
• 3rd Party can choose who to sue unless there is undue delay or he represents he wont sue principal
RIGHTS OF THE PRINCIPAL
• CAN REQUIRES 3RD PARTY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT AND VICE VERSA – S.184(a)
• PRINCIPAL’S RIGHTS SUBJECT TO RIGHTS & LIABILITIES AS BETWEEN AGENT AND 3RD PARTY (S.185) e.g. 3rd party’s rights to set-off or counter claim vs principal OR agent
• PRINCIPAL WHO DISCLOSES HIMSELF BEFORE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT CANNOT ENFORCE CONTRACT VS 3RD PARTY IF 3RD PARTY CAN PROVE THAT IDENTITY OF PRINCIPAL IS MATERIAL – S.184(b)
RIGHTS OF AGENT
• AGENT CAN ENFORCE HIS OWN CONTRACT VS 4RD PARTY
• CANNOT ENFORCE IS HE FALSELY REPRESENTS HIMSLEF AS AGENT IN THE TRANSACTION –S.189
DUTIES OF AGENT TOWARDS PRINCIPAL
DUTIES STATED IN CONTRACT OR (IF SILENT) IN THE
CONTRACTS ACT
TO OBEY THE PRINCIPAL’S INSTRUCTIONS
IF NO INSTRUCTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL, MUST ACT ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN BUSINESS OF THE SAME KIND.
TO EXERCISE CARE & DILIGENCE AND USE ALL SKILLS HE POSSESSES IN CARRYING OUT HIS WORK
TO RENDER PROPER ACCOUNTS WHEN REQUIRED
TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
NOT TO MAKE SECRET PROFIT FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY
TO PAY HIS PRINCIPAL ALL SUMS RECEIVED ON THIS BEHALF
CANNOT DELEGAT HIS AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER PERSON
TO OBEY THE PRINCIPALS INSTRUCTIONS
S.164 – AGENT BOUND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS
ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS OR CUSTOM
FAILURE TO OBEY- BREACH OF CONTRACT: AGENT
LIABLE FOR PRINCIPAL’S LOSS
TURPIN V BILTON - FAILURE OF AGENT TO
INSURE VESSEL
AGENT DOES NOT HAVE TO OBEY ILLEGAL
INSTRUCTIONS
IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS, TO ACT ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING CUSTOMS
s. 164 & Illustration (b) Any loss or profit
accrued to be made good by agent to
principal
An agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, or in the absence of any such
directions, according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at
thepiace where the agent conducts the business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his
principa[ and if any profit accrues, he must account for it
TO EXERCISE CARE & DILIGENCE AND USE ALL SKILLS
S.165: An agent is bound to conduct the business generally possessed by persons engaged in similar business, unless the principal has notice of his want of skill. The agent is always bound to act with reasonable diligence, and use such skills as he possesses; and to make compensation to his principal in respect of the direct consequences of his own neglect, want of skill, or misconduct, but in respect of loss or damage which are indirectly or remotely caused by such neglect, want of skill or misconduct
E.G.SAME SERVICE AS PROFESSIONAL (UNLESS PRINCIPAL ALREADY NOTICES LACK OF SKILL) OR IF SELLING GOODS, TO SELL AT BEST PRICE – ANDREWS V RAMSAY & CO
AGENT OBLIGED TO TELL PRINCIPAL OF OTHER BETTER OFFERS EVEN IF CONTRACT ALREADY CONCLUDED – KEPPEL V WHEELER
TO RENDER PROPER ACCOUNTS WHEN REQUIRED
S.166: AN AGENT IS BOUND TO RENDER PROPER ACCOUNTS TO HIS PRINCIPAL ON DEMAND
PROPERTY OF THE PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SHOULD NOT BE MIXED
LYELL V KENNEDY – AGENT IS BOUND TO KEEP MONEY/PROPERTY SEPARATELY FROM HIS OWN PROPERTY
TO COMMUNICATE WITH PRINCIPAL DURING EMERGENCY/DIFFICULTY
S.167IT IS THE DUTY OF AN AGENT, IN CASES OF
DICCULTY, TO USE ALL REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN
COMMUNICATING WITH HIS PRINCIPAL AND IN
SEEKING TO OBTAIN HIS INSTRUCTIONS
WHEN?IN CASESOF EMERGENCY
OR DIFFICULTY
IF IMPOSSIBE, AGENT CAN USE OWN DISCRETION TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE PRINCIPAL – S.142
AGENT CANNOT BECOME A PARTY TO A CONTRACT WITH PRINCIPAL –
AMSTRONG V JONES – AGENT SOLD HIS OWN SHARES TO PRINCIPAL
PRINCIPAL HAS RIGHT TO REPUDIATE CONTRACT EVEN IF THE AGENT ACTED
FAIRLY – WONG MUN WAI V WONG THAM FATT (PRINCIPALS SHARE OF
LAND SOLD BELOW MARKET VALUE TO AGENT’S WIFE
AGENT CANNOT ACT FOR BOTH PARTIES TO A TRASACTION WITHOUT
BOTH PARTIES CONSENT – FULWOOD V HURLEY (CLAIMED COMMISSION
FROM BUYER AND SELLER)
S.169 - 'lf an agent, without knowledge of his principal, deals in the
business of the agency on his own account instead of on account of his principal, the principal is entitled to
claim from the agent any benefit which may have resulted to him from the
transaction'.
PRINCIPAL CAN RECOVER FROM THE AGENT ANY BENEFIIT THE AGENT MAY HAVE OBTAINED EVEN IF THERE IS NO
LOSS
AGENT MUST DISCLOSE TO THE PRINCIPAL EVERYTHING RELATING TO
THE CONTRACT BUT NOT TO THE OTHER PARTY
CANNOT DISCLOSE THE PRINCIPAL’S SECRET TO ANOTHER
MUST PAY ALL PROFIT AND MONIES INTO THE PRINCIPAL’S ACCOUNT
CANNOT MIX WITH AGENT’S PROPERTY – LYELL V KENNEDY
TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST
NOT TO MAKE ANY SECRET PROFIT• bribe/ secret commission/any financial advantage
which is over and above the commission agreed under the agency contract
• If the principal does not consent to it, remedies are available (ANDREWS V RAMSAY & CO)
SECRET PROFIT
• lf an agent deals on his own account in the business of the agency, without first obtaining the consent of his principal and acquainting him with all material circumstances which have come to his own knowledge on the subject, the principal may repudiate the transaction, if the case shows either that any material fact has been dishonestly concealed from him by the agent, or that the dealing of the agent have been disadvantageous to him.S.168
NOT TO MAKE ANY SECRET PROFIT
• REMEDIES OF THE PRINCIPAL– may repudiate the contract made by his agent– may recover the amount of the bribe (s.169) – TAN KIONG HWA V
ANDREW S.H. CHONG– May refuse to pay agent’s commission/remuneration– May terminate agency for breach of duty – BOSTON DEEP SEA FISHING
& ICE CO V ANSEL– May sue both agent and person who gave bribe for losses suffered –
MAHESAN V MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICERS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
– Criminal offence under S.4 Prevention of Corruption Act 1961
TO PAY TO THE PRINCIPAL ALL MONIES RECEIVED ON HIS BEHALF
S.170: AGENT MAY RETAIN, OUT OF ANY SUMS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE
PRINCIPAL, A) ANY SUMS OWED.TO THE AGENT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES
MADE/ EXPENSES INCURRED BY AGENT IN CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS.
B) ANY COMMISSION/REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE AGENT.
S.171: SUBJECT TO THE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 170, THE AGENT IS BOUND TO PAY TO HIS PRINCIPAL ALL
SUMS RECEIVED ON HIS ACCOUNT
S.174: AGENT’S HAS RIGHT TO RETAIN PRINCIPAL’S PROPERTY IN HIS
POSSESSION UNTIL HIS REMUNERATION IS PAID
AGENT ONLY HAS RIGHT TO RETAIN ION BUT NOT POWER TO RESELL/SELL THE GOODS UNLESS WITH THE PRINCIPAL’S
CONSENT
CANNOT DELEGATE AUTHORITY
DELEGATUS NON POTEST DELEGARE – AGENT CANNOT EMPLOY ANOTHER PERSON TO DO HIS DUTY
EXCEPTION:
WHERE THE PRINCIPAL HIMSELF APPROVES THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY (DE BUSSCHE V ALT)
IT IS PRESUMED FROM CONDUCT THAT AGENT HAS POWER TO DELEGATE
IN CASE OF EMERGENCY
DELEGATED ACT IS PURELY CLERICAL OF ADMINSTERIAL (ALLAM & CO V EUROPA
POSTER SERVICES LTD - SOLICITORS)(JOHN MCCANN & CO V POW – SALES
AGENT)
WHERE CUSTOM PERMITS
WHERE DELEGATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE BUSINESS
DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL TOWARDS AGENT
INDEMNIFY & REIMBURSE AGENT – S.175: ALL COSTS, LOSS LIABILITIES INCURRED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AGENT’S AUTHORITY BORNE BY THE PRINCIPAL (HICHENS, HARRISON , WOOLSTON & C0 V JACKSON & SONS
CANNOT PURPOSELY STOP OR HINDER AGENT FROM EARNING COMMISSION E.G. PRINCIPAL REFUSES TO ACCEPT CONTRACT MADE BY
AGENT OR PRINCIPAL APPOINTS ANOTHER AGENT
TO PAY COMMISSION/REMUNERATION - S.172. IF GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT(WRONGFUL/IMPROPER CONDUCT E.G. BRIBE) – NO
COMMISSION (ANDREWS V RAMSAY)
DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL TOWARDS AGENT
WHEN DUTY TO INDEMNIFY
ARISES:
AGENT INCURRED LOSSES OR LIABILITIES IN
PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES (KYALL & EVATT V LIM KIM KEAT – SALE OF SHARES PURSUANT TO A
WILL)
AGENT CAUSES INJURY TO 3RD PARTY IN THE COURSE
OF HIS DUTY – S.176 ILLUSTRATION (b)
AGENT IS INJURED DURING THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES DUE TO THE
PRINCIPAL’S NEGLIGENCE S.178
TERMINATION OF AGENCY
TERMINATION
BY ACT OF PARTIES (AGENT AND PRINCIPAL)
BY OPERATION OF LAW
TERMINATION BY ACT OF THE PARTIES
BY MUTUAL CONSENT –
S.154
PRINCIPAL’S UNILATERAL
REVOCATION/ RENUNCIATION
AGENT’S UNILATERAL
RENUNCIATION
UNILATERAL TERMINATION BY PRINCIPAL – S.156
REVOCATION CAN BE AT ANY TIME BEFORE AGENT
EXERCISES AUTHORITY
CAN BE EXPRESS/IMPLIED (S.160)
REASONABLE NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN (S.159) OTHERWISE
PRINCIPAL LIABLE TO DAMAGES
REASONABLE NOTICE DEPENDS ON FACTS OF THE
CASE
SOHRABJI V ORIENTAL SECURITY ASSURANCE – 3 ½
MONTHS NOTICE INSUFFICIENT TO TERMINATE
A 50 YEAR OLD AGENCY
SYARIKAT JAYA V STAR PUBLICATION (M) SDN BHD –
6 MONTHS NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO TERMINATE A
SOLE AGENCY
TERMINATION EFFECTIVE WHEN COMES TO THE
NOTICE OF THE AGENT & 3RD PARTY (S.161)
IF AGENT OR 3RD PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OF THE
REVOCATION/ TERMINATION – NOT EFFECTIVE (PICHAPPA
CHITTY V AH JAH)
FIXED AGENCY – EARLY TERMINATION + DAMAGES FOR BALANCE TENURE IF
INSUFFICIENT CAUSE S.158
UNILATERAL TERMINATION BY PRINCIPAL – EXCEPTIONS
EXCEPTIONS WHERE PRINCIPAL CANNOT REVOKE AGENCY:
AGENT ALSO HAS INTEREST IN PROPERTY WHICH IS
SUBJECT TO THE AGENCY S.155
SMART V SANDERS
FIRTH V FIRTH : AGENT PAID
FIRST ON BEHALF OF PRINCIPAL
AFTER AUTHORITY HAS
BEEN PARTLY EXERCISED BY
AGENT – S.157
READ V ANDERSON –
BESTA [PLACED ON BEHALF OF
PRINCIPAL, CANNOT REVOKE
AUTHORITY UNTIL PAID FOR
UNILATERAL RENUNCIATION BY AGENT
S.154 – BY AGENT RENOUNCING THE BUSINESS OR THE RELATIONSHIP OF
AGENCY
S.160 : RENUCIATION CAN BE EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED
S.159 : REASONABLE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN
TO PRINCIPAL OR MAY BE LIABLE FOR
DAMAGES
S.156 : PREMATURE RENUNCIATION BY AGENT – MAY BE
LIABLE TO DAMAGES
TERMINATION BY OPERATION OF LAW
BY PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT – S.154
EXPIRY OR LAPSE OF CONTRACT EVEN IF WORK NOT COMPLETED
DEATH OR PRINCIPAL OR AGENT (S.154) PROVISO: (i) No termination if agent has interest in agency property (S.155)
(ii) Due notice must have been given to agent (S.161)(iii) agent must take reasonable steps to protect interest of principal (s.162)
• INSANITY OF PRINCIPAL OR AGENT (S.154) – YONGE V TOYNBEE• BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY OF PRINCIPAL
• EVENT OCCURS WHICH RENDERS THE AGENCY UNLAWFUL