preview

Maya Stork Case

Decent Essays

PART 1
INTRODUCTION
The above case of Maya Stork and Kallessi McTavish is in breach of the Law of Agency.
The law of agency is a consensual relationship created by contract or by law where one party, the principal, grants authority for another party, the agent, to act on behalf of and under the control of the principal to deal with a third party.
An agency relationship is fiduciary [good faith] in nature, and the actions and words of an agent exchanged with a third party legally bind the principal.
The law of agency includes three parties
• Agent- A person who is employed to represent another while dealing with a third party.
• Principal-The principal is the person who is represented by an agent. The actions of the agent bind the principal …show more content…

Kallessi McTavish

McTavish [principal] has been wronged by the agent and is facing legal actions due to the unauthorized actions of the agent. McTavish is in the rightful position to sue the agent in court for the breach of a clearly stated instruction in the contract.

Case Law: Graham & Co v United Turkey Red Co 1922 SC 533 Facts:
It was a term of the contract that the agent was not to sell goods supplied by anyone other than the principal. The agent sold other goods and was dismissed.
Held: He was not entitled to commission for the period when he sold other supplier's goods.
In the McTavish case the agent breached a clear term of the contract and is liable to pay back the money to the principal. Stork has also breached his fiduciary duty [loyalty, good faith] to McTavish regarding this …show more content…

The supplier could sue the principal or the agent for the matter regarding his liability, his choice is final once made.
Case Law: Ferrier v Dods (1865) 3 M 561
Facts:
Dods was an auctioneer. He advertised a sale of horses, warranted as good workers. Ferrier bought a horse, but later informed Dods that it was unfit for work. Dods told Ferrier that he had the right to return the horse, and suggested he return her to her former owner. F did this but did not get his money back - he then tried to sue Dods.
Held:
By returning the horse to the owner, Ferrier had effectively elected to take action against him. The action against Dods, the auctioneer, was dismissed. The supplier in this scenario could additionally sue the agent as well for damages on the basis of misrepresentation of authority.
Case Law: Anderson v Croall & Sons Ltd 1903 6F 153
Facts:
A horse was accidentally auctioned by Croall. A was the bidder. He paid the price but the owner refused to deliver the horse - the sale had not been authorised by

Get Access