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
A court will likely find Wayne Carter to be the legal owner of the Stanton farm in Colin County, in spite of having not recorded with the deed with the county, because George Pearson, the subsequent purchaser had a duty to inquire and such an inquiry would have yielded notice that Carter had deed to the farm. Under Texas law,
Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted
Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the principle) who lists her property for sale and enters into an agreement with an agent to facilitate a sale with a third party. Over the course of the agency agreement a prospective buyer inspected the property but didn’t make an offer before the agency agreement expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency agreement expires. The prospective buyer later decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, but once discovering that the agreement between the principle and agent had expired brought legal action against the agent.
Agent – a buyer (in this case a buyer in a foreign city that the factor has to manually locate)
Facts: John Peck sold a piece of land to Robert Fletcher. Since the original sale from Peck was invalid, Peck committed a breach of contract.
An agency relationship is a fiduciary relationship that is created with a written contract or oral agreement.
The court held that Lefkowitz was entitled to performance by the defendant because he complied with the terms of the advertisement and offered the stated purchase price. The court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiff and awarded damages equal to the stated value in the advertisement for the mink stole minus the $1 purchase price. The court denied the claim on the coat, ruling that the value was too speculative and the defendant appealed.
15b. Sven would be entitled to judgment if he proved Brent made a down payment of $200. This is because it meets the Statute of Frauds exception of partial performance. Under UCC, an oral contract for goods priced at $500 or more is enforceable to the extent that the seller accepts payment or the buyer accepts the delivery of goods. Because the seller, Sven, accepted partial payment for the 8 used air conditioners of $200, the contract is enforceable to the extent of what took
Similarly leaving furniture, or a large amount of vendor’s chattel have been held as breaches of a vendor’s obligation to give physical vacant possession of the property.
“Agency is the relationship arising where one person, the principal (P), appoints another, the agent (A) to bring about, modify or terminate legal relations between the principal and a third party (T)”
However during the process of contract creation there is express agency. This is direct authority that an agent has. In cases where an agent relationship has to be determined, there are two parties involved; the principal and agent. The agent acts on behalf of the principal an agent therefore has a legal power to bind the principal. A principal should be very careful when it comes to the type of authority they give to an agent ( The 'Lectric Law
Thousands of dollars have been spent advertising his products and it is only fair that I seek damages for what was directly lost through the breached contract. If the supplier stops doing business with me then it will take time and extreme emotional discomfort to take back my adverting promises. If emotional distress or damage to my reputation occurs, I will seek damages for losses suffered related to the breached contract. (Kippenhan, 2017, p. 144)
Andy is likely to be successful in court. Although the only express terms were that Andy would pay $400 for use of the paddocks for his horse, there is a potential implied term that the paddocks would be reasonably equipped to service the horse, especially given both parties understood that the horse would require grass and water during the time it was living in the paddock. As in Costa Vraca v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control, Doug
that the document did not appear to be contractual. In D J Hill and Co
Agency issues arise when one party (principal) gives another party (agent) an authority to act on his behalf. In this context, the principal is the investor while the professional hedge fund