Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
LAW OF AGENCY - Coggle Diagram
LAW OF AGENCY
NATURE OF AGENCY
A contract of agency involves a tripatile relationship.The first person (i.e. THE AGENT) gvn authority to bring the second person (i.e. THE PRINCIPAL) into contractual relations w the third parties.
-
-
-
Do we need consideration? Section 138 Contracts Act 1950 provides that no considertion is necessary to create an agency
TYPES OF AGENCY
AGREEMENT
BY EXPRESS
-
eg of an express appoinment made in writing is a POwer of Attorney. Even a leeter or words spoken may be effective in appointing an agent.
BY IMPLIED
can infer the creation of an agency by implication when a person by his words or conduct holds out another person as having an authority to act on him
EG: If he allows another person toorder goods on his behalf and habitually pays for them, an agency may be implied. He will be bound by the contratcs as if he has expressly authorised them
-
-can be entered in a formal or an informal manner.
-Section 140 CA1950 provides that an authority is said to be express when it is gvn by words, spoken or written
AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
Section 149 CA 1950: where acts are done by on eperson on behalf of another but wihtout his knowledge or authority, he may elect to raaitfy or to disown the acts. If he ratifies them, the same effects will follow as if they had been performed by him.
-
-
AGENCY BY NECESSITY
In certain circumstances, the law may confer authority on one person to act as agent for another wihtout regard to the consent of the principal. This agency arises by operation of law but not contract. In such situation, the law deems the agency to exist despite there being no agreement.
require immediate action and communication with the principal is impossible. although no authority to do so
Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield : a horse was being transported by rail but arrived late at the railway station. The railway company felt they had no choice but to stable the horse overnight. It was held that despite not being authorised by the owner of the horse, the railway company could claim reimbursement for the cost incurred.
(i) emergency must arise justifying the action to preserve or dispose of the property of principal
(ii) impossible to contact principal to take instructions
(iii) agent acted in interest of the principal.
-
-
-
-
-
