LAW OF AGENCY
Defining an agency
A large proportion of contracts are made, at least on one side, through agents, since in most contracts at least one of the parties is a company and companies have to act through human beings who act on their behalf. This part of the book is concerned with the law relating to the use of agents who make contracts in this way. Three parties are involved, the principal (P), the agent (A) and the third party (T) with whom the agent negotiates so as to bring his principal and the third party into a contractual relationship. In the rest of this part, these three parties will be referred to as P, A and T respectively
Agency distinguished from other relationships
It is important to distinguish the legal concept of agency from the way in which the word ‘agent’ is used in common speech or even in business and to note its distinction from certain other similar relationships:
Types of agency
Various labels have been used to distinguish particular types of agent, thereby indicating the extent or nature of an agent’s powers or duties. They are not always of much significance in practice, but some of the most commonly used are noted here.
General or special agent
A general agent is engaged to carry out transactions which fall within the general area of a trade or business. A managing director, or a partner, for example, will normally have the authority to make a wide range of contracts on behalf of the company or firm. A special agent will be appointed for a particular transaction and have no authority beyond that.More Movies Download from here Movieorca.
Mercantile agent – factors and brokers
Factors are given possession of the goods which are to be sold – as, for example, when they are sent from abroad. Moreover, a factor may sell in his own name, that is, on behalf of an undisclosed principal (Baring v Carrie (1818)). Brokers, by contrast never take possession of goods and never sell in their own name. Brokers simply negotiate to bring the parties together. The term broker is, however, also used in relation to agents who are not mercantile agents, such as stockbrokers or insurance brokers.
The aim is to deal with independent agents who have no other relationship with the principal. Employees are not covered and the Regulations also exclude directors, partners, receivers and insolvency practitioners. The agent must deal in goods for the principal and this must be the agent’s primary activity on behalf of the principal. The Regulations do not, however, apply to gratuitous agents, dealings on the commodity markets or exchanges, or Crown Agents. There is a rebuttable presumption that mail order catalogue agencies and consumer credit agencies are not commercial agencies for these purposes (para 5 of the Schedule).
As has been noted above, estate agents do not generally have authority to enter into contracts on behalf of their principals. There is some statutory regulation of such agents by the Estate Agents Act 1979 and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. The former Act contains a definition of ‘estate agency work’ which is also used by the 1991 Act. It, basically, defines such work as introducing prospective purchasers or sellers of interests in land to the agent’s principal and then ‘securing the disposal … or acquisition of that interest’.All information details movietube
Creation of agency
Clearly, they need not use the word agency; indeed, there is no need for them to understand the law of agency, as long as they envisage a relationship which falls within its ambit. In many cases, P simply engages A to do something for him, to manage his business, his hotel, to act as his solicitor for the conveyancing of his house.Plz Visit For mp4moviez
Agency by operation of law
There is a very limited number of cases where the law has created an agency relationship even though the parties did not agree. At one time, this was the position for deserted wives who could pledge their husband’s credit for necessaries but this has been abolished by of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970. Where two or more people live together, it may well be that one of them has actual or apparent authority to contract on behalf of the other. This would be subject to the ordinary rules which are discussed in the next chapter.
The most controversial cases are likely to be those in which A is working on a commission basis and made assumptions about how long the relationship will last which are then cut across by what A regards as a premature termination. In Rhodes v for wood (1876), P appointed a as sole agent for the sale of coal from P’s colliery in Liverpool for a period of seven years. After four years, P sold the colliery. It was held that there was no breach of contract. Note that, in this case, it was assumed that P was not obliged to sell any coal in Liverpool; he was only obliged to sell any coal sold in Liverpool through A. So, if P decided to sell all his coal in Newcastle instead, this would not have been a breach.