- Published: October 31, 2021
- Updated: October 31, 2021
- University / College: University of Surrey
- Language: English
- Downloads: 38
Butcher and his assistant were charged with doing acts preparatory to the commission of an offence contrary to the statute.
If the parcels had been actually sold then an offence would have been committed by both the assistant and his master. The prohibition against selling above the maximum price is absolute and had the sale been affected the master would have been guilty of the full offence it being no defense to show that the act had been done in his absence and w/o his knowledge.The similarity between agency liability and vicarious liability in tort is that the difference in tort is that you have to prove negligence under agency you prove breach of contract. (d) In agency an employer is responsible for actions of his employee and also an independent contractor in which he employs.
The principal is bound by the actions of his agent provided that it is done within the powers given. Boundary is his authority.There are three types of authority deemed, apparent, actual authority.
Partners in a firm can bind others for the carrying on off business. (2)Lease Management Co v Purcell- the photocopier manufacturer canon was held to be acting as an agent of a leasing company in different ownership but trading as Canon South West consequently the lessee was allowed to walk away from its lease commitment as a result of the salesman having overstated the performance of the proper.Purcell was an extraordinary case where the facts created an estoppels so that the lesser could not deny that the supplier had been allowed to act as its agent. ALMS were liable for the collateral warranty that the photocopier would produce paper plates.
Professionals acting on behalf of a credit(3) Hugh v HAD Clifford and Sons- where the Court held that the solicitor had the usual legal authority to settle. The English CA held that a solicitor or counsel retained an action had ostensible authority as the opposing litigant to compromise the suit.There is no doubt as to an attorney f the laws power to compromise an action and a short settlement…
…. . A solicitor is authorized to compromise proceedings and as between himself and his client he has implied authority to compromise w/o reference to his client. He also has ostensible authority Visa a Visa the client’s apparent to compromise w/o proof of actual authority. Persons described as agents in sale transactions may not really be agents in law.
Where an agent is free to fix the price he may not be considered an agent. 4)Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Company. The court was asked whether a orientation relating to goods between an exporter and the defendant, as a financier, associated with sales by the exporter to third-party purchasers, amounted to a true sale by the exporter to the defendant or was merely a loan by the defendant to the exporter secured on the goods or their proceeds, in which case it would have been void as an unregistered charge over book debts.The court referred to ‘external’ and ‘internal’ routes to the construction of commercial documents.
Dillon LLC considered a possible case on the proposition that the written agreement was a sham intended t ask the true agreement: ‘But the question can also arise where, without any question of sham, there is some objective criterion in law by which the court can test whether the agreement the parties have made does or does not fall into the legal category in which the parties have sought to place their agreement. As to whether the authorities established conclusively what was to count as a charge: ‘In my judgment there is no one clear touchstone by which it can necessarily and inevitable be said that a document which is not a sham and which is expressed as an agreement for sale must necessarily, as a matter of law, amount to no more than the reaction of a mortgage or charge on the property expressed to be sold. It is necessary therefore to look at the provisions in the master agreement as a whole to decide whether in substance it amounts to an agreement for the sale of goods or only to a mortgage or charge on goods and their proceeds. Staunton L]: ‘There are in my opinion two routes by which this principle [the principle that transactions take the effect that they appear to have] can be overcome. The first, which I will call the external route, is to show that the written document does not represent the agreement of the parties. It may, if one wishes, then be called a sham, a cloak or a device.
The second is the internal route, when one looks only at the written agreement in order to ascertain from its terms whether it amounts to a transaction the legal nature which the parties ascribe to it. Court will determine an agency based on 3rd party and if it is going to put the 3rd party at a disadvantage then the will rule in favor of the agency. Agency is the relationships which exist between 2 persons, principal and agent who have both consented to the creation of the agency relationship. Grammar Grain v HAM Fare Fairchild- the relationship off principal ND agent can only be established by the consent of the principal and agent.They will be held to have consented if they have agreed to what amounts in law to such a relationship even if they have professed to disclaim it. The consent must however, b given by each of the expressly or by implication from their words or conduct.
The la recognizes an agent as having the power to affect the principals legal position, creating by his actions rights and obligations enforceable by and against the principal. Agent’s actions if they include duress or undue influence can be attribute to the principal.The relationship of principal and agent can only arise by consent of the parties however, agency is a legal concept and 2 persons may be found to have consented to the creation of an agency relationship without there being any express agreement to that effect or even them realizing it. A factor is an agent whose business is to sell or otherwise deal with goods on behalf of the principal, the principal gives the factor possession of the goods for that purpose. A broker negotiates contracts for the sale and purchase of goods and other property on behalf of his principal but doesn’t have possession of the goods.
Agency Relationships General and Special Agents: The distinction between the two depends upon the nature of the authority which is given by the principal to the agent. A general agent has authority to act for the principal for a particular trade or for a particular class of transactions. A special agent’s authority is confined to acting for one particular transaction Broker and Factors: An example of a broker is a real estate agent. A factor is a person whose business it is to dispose of the principals goods but the goods are in his possession whereas the broker arranges for sale or purchases which are not in is possession.
A Del Careered Agent: This person contracts for the principal and guarantees for him that the party will pay any sum under the contract price. Commercial Agent: His authority is roughly described as a continuing authority Commission Agent: He acts to buy and sell property for the principal on behalf of the latter but is not authorized to create priority of contract between the third party and the principal. Confirming House: Plays a role in international trade and the function of this type of agent is to be the local contact for an international entity provides knowledge and expertise.Commercial Marketing Distributorship: There are differences between an agent and a distributor. Distributorship is the creature of a contracts or agreement while an agency is determinable by law. Note the case of Lamb v.
Goring Brick Company- where the defendant appointed the plaintiff as sole agents for goods for a fixed period. Before that period was up the defendants decided they wished to sell the goods themselves. The court held that there was a breach of contract, which meant that the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff was not a based on agency.
If it had been, he defendants could have sold the goods themselves.Franchising Agreement: See notes. Additional notes: The franchisee is entitled to use the name, logo, style of structure of the main business. The relationship here, between the two is more like..
. Licensing: A manufacturer may give to another business license to sell and/or manufacture its goods. Subsidiaries: Used to market products and services and subsidiaries may act as an agent for a holding company. E.
G. Grace Kennedy. Authority of the Agent: The external relationship between the principal and the agent depends on the scope of the power given to the agent to act.It depends largely on consent and the court recognizes the power to bind in the following ways: 1 . Where the principal gives the agent prior consent the agent has actual authority 2. Where the agent act without prior authority but the principal give retroactive consent by ratifying what the agent has done 3. Where the agent acts without consent but the law deems the principal to have consented for example agent of necessity Where the agent acts without the consent of the principal but the principal is stopped from denying the agents authority in that case the agent is said to have has apparent authority. Note: Freeman Locker v.
Brochures and Kapok (1964) 2 CB 480 per dictum Diploid LLC- an actual authority is a legal relationship between principal and agent created by a consensual agreement to which they alone are parties. To this agreement the 3rd party is a stranger he may be totally ignorant of the existence of any authority on the part of the agent. Nevertheless if the agent does enter into a contract pursuant to the actual authority it does create contractual rights and liabilities between the principal and 3rd party. In the ordinary course of events the 3rd party relies not on the agent’s actual authority but on the apparent authority.Types of Authority (Exam Question could ask to explain authorities deal with the first three properly) Express Actual Authority This is where the principal consents to the agent exercising authority on behalf of the principal with the principals consent.
The relationship between the principal and agent must be consensual but it need not be contractual. Note: Ireland v. Livingston- Livingston wrote to Ireland in Mauritius authorizing them to buy and ship 500 tons of sugar adding 50 tons more or less of no moment if it enables you to et s suitcase vessel.These instructions were ambiguous and capable of two meanings either one bulk was required to be sent in one ship or two or more bulks could be sent in two or more ships. The agents took the latter meaning and shipped 400 tons with an intention to ship a further 60 tons when available at a later date. Livingston refused delivery and wrote to cancel any further order.
The agents sued for breach of contract. It was held that the instructions were capable of 2 meanings. In the circumstances they acted reasonable and Livingston was bound to accept the cargo.There are no formalities requires for the appointment of an agent.
It may be expressed or implied. If it is expressed it can be in writing, oral or by deed. Where it is expressed the scope of the authority depends upon the agreement, where it is oral there must be proof of what was said, and where it was by deed the terms are very strict. Note: Anyone can act as an agent, even a minor; however a principal cannot sue a minor. In deciding whether there is an agency relationship, the court may imply terms or additional terms and the agent may be given very wide authority. Case: Henderson v.Merritt- Load’s of London, an insurance market, is organized in syndicates – groups who share the business, risk, and reward, of underwriting insurance policies and similar projects.
The syndicate acts as a market which offers insurance on the one hand and investment opportunity on the other. The active business of a syndicate is run by underwriting agents. The liability of an investor (known as a “name”) is unlimited – names share the profits but are also exposed to unlimited liability in the event of losses. In the present case, hurricanes in America had led to unprecedented losses for insurers.After the raciness, Load’s called upon the investors to cover their share of these losses. Litigation followed in which the names sued the people running the underwriting agents for negligent management of the investment fund. Mr.
. Henderson was one of the names and Merritt Syndicates Ltd was one of the underwriting agents. It was accepted that the underwriting agents had a duty to exercise due care and skill (see for instance, s 13 Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982.
The question was whether the agents could be liable to the indirect investors (the names behind in the syndicate which had formed another syndicate).The robber was that there was a contractual relationship between the head syndicate managers and its direct members, but not necessarily a contractual relationship between the head syndicate managers and the members of the sub-syndicate. This led to the question of whether a duty could arise in tort, raising the matter of “assumption of responsibility. It was held that Merritt Syndicates was types of shareholders, as there was enough foresee ability to extend p loss liability to “UN-proximate” third parties.The major significance he however, the allowance of claims in both contract and tort, which blurb between the two. Some of the first party Names claimed in tort to over three-year limit in which an action must be taken in contract.
In allow action, the House of Lords expressly overruled Lord Cascara’s ruling Cotton Mill Ltd v Ill Chon Hinge Bank Ltd , in which it was held t nothing advantageous to the law’s development in searching for a alibi where the parties are in a contractual relationship. The allowance of actions was immensely controversial, as it ran contrary to legal orthodox Ambiguous terms are interpreted in favor of the agent: Ireland v. Livingston- Livingston wrote to Ireland in Mauritius authors ay and ship 500 tons of sugar adding 50 tons more or less of no mom enables you to get s suitcase vessel. These instructions were ambiguous of two meanings either one bulk was required to be sent in one ship o bulks could be sent in two or more ships. The agents took the latter m shipped 400 tons with an intention to ship a further 60 tons when via date.Livingston refused delivery and wrote to cancel any further order sued for breach of contract. It was held that the instructions were cap meanings. In the circumstances they acted reasonable and Livingston accept the cargo.
Midland Band v. Rickets – authority by deed. If A, an been specifically instructed by B the principal to import sugar from BRB subsequently A acting on his own goes to import from Malaysia B would to pay for the goods unless he ratifies the act or had represented to the that A had authority.Implied Actual Authority Where the agents’ actions are authorized by implied authority, the PRI to have given implied consent to a particular action/transaction. The a may be wholly implicit as in the case of Hello-Hutchinson v. Beebread 98: A company chairman was allowed by his board to act as managing Hadley Byrne v.
Heeler is a banking English tort law case on negligent The case was considered by the House of Lords, as leading case in stats pure economic loss arising from a tort. It introduced the basic idea of of responsibility”.Hadley [the appellants] were advertising agency who some advertising work for Superpower. Hadley was responsible for any was not paid by Superpower since they have to pay for advertising order Hadley became curious about a financial position of Superpower to afford advertising which Hadley may give them on credit. The bank of ASPI defendant] gave a report of Superpower financial position that they have resources for ordinary business proceedings, but stated that the rep without responsibility. Based on the report which was given by the r Hadley added another orders on behalf of Superpower which later on w by sufficient resources.
It meant a loss of EYE,OHO for Hadley Byrne. He respondents for damages under the tort of negligence. In this case was modified pure economic loss in negligence. The effect of Hadley Byrne makes possible the recovery of compensation for financial damage through reliance by the plaintiff according to statements made negligently by the defendant but only where there exists a ‘special relationship’ between the parties.The term “special relationship” which must be between plaintiff and defendant before there can be liability was not fully defined but for its existence seems to be: a reliance by the claimant on the defendants specialist skill and Judgment; BOO, reasonable expectation of knowledge on the part of the defendant, that the claimant would be relying on that statement; it was reasonable for the plaintiff to rely on the defendant; there had to be a assumption, either explicit or implicit, of responsibility on behalf of the defendant.The law was primarily changed by the House of Lords first time in 1989 and again anally in 1990. This change was a little held back by several decisions during the asses until the House of Lords gave two decisions which were very important for future of law, namely D&F Estates v Church Commissioners for England  AC 17 and Murphy v Breadroot District Council  2 All ERE 908. The law was form as such: (a) Neither public authorities, nor private participants, owe an “economic loss” duty of care to any class of the public.
B) The liability does remain when a Plaintiff can bring himself within a Hadley Byrne situation: there must be positive actions or presentations amounting to a voluntary assumption of responsibility by the Defendant. With regard to decreasing claims, the specter of negligent misstatement is important to any professional report entrusted to whether damage has or may occur, and what might be done about it. There may also be an expansion of implied authority by usual customary authority.
For example the agent is implied to have all the authority that a person in his position would have had.Sometimes the authority of the agent may not be very detailed or the detail of his authority may affect commercial trade. Cases: United Bank Kuwait v. Hammond, City Trust v. Levy – A solicitor acting as a partner in the first case and as an assistant in the second, signed forms of guarantee and undertakings without actual authority, and resulted in both Banks lending money to fraudulent third parties. – Held he Banks were reasonable in believing that the solicitors was acting within the firm’s authority.
Thus both firms were liable. Hugh v.HAD Clifford and Sons- where the Court held that the solicitor had the usual legal authority to settle. The English CA held that a solicitor or counsel retained an action had ostensible authority as the opposing litigant to compromise he suit. There is no doubt as to an attorney of the laws power to compromise an action and a short settlement.
. A solicitor is authorized to compromise proceedings and as between himself and his client he has implied authority to compromise w/o reference to his client. He also has ostensible authority Visa a Visa the client’s apparent to compromise w/o proof of actual authority.Customary Authority: This relates to particular usage of a trade and is therefore similar to implied actual authority. For there to be a custom there must be three things satisfied: It must be retain, notorious and it must be reasonable. Dingle v.
Hare 1859- in this case the agent was authorized to sell manure there existed a commercial custom that a warranty was supplied with the manure. The agent sold some with a warranty. In an action for breach of warranty it was argued that the agent had no authority to give warranties.It was held as the custom was notorious and reasonable the agent had implied authority to issue a warrant for the manure. Robinson v. Molest- a broker was instructed to buy 50 tons of tallow.
There existed a custom in the tallow trade that brokers would buy bulk in their own name n order to supply several principles. The principal did not know of this custom. Hell the custom was unreasonable because of the effect of it was that the agent acted a principal in his own right with potential conflict of interest which went with it.If the principal had known of the unreasonable custom authorizing the particular transaction then the agent would have authority to act in accordance with the custom. But as the principal in this case did not know of the custom the agent had implied authority.
The principal is bound by the customs of the trade once he is involved in the trade. Apparent Authority Arises where the principals words or actions gives the third party the impression that he, the principal, has given his agent authority, even if the principal and the agent has never purported to have such a relationship.The agent has power to bin the principal by the source of estoppels arising from the conduct of the principal towards the third party. Case: Freeman Locker v.
Brochures and Kapok- an actual authority is a legal relationship between principal and agent created by a consensus agreement to which they alone are parties. To this agreement the 3rd party is a trainer he may be totally ignorant of the existence of any authority on the part of the agent. Nevertheless if the agent does enter into a contract pursuant to the ACTA authority it does create contractual rights and liabilities between the principal and 3rd party.In the ordinary course of events the 3rd party relies not on the agent’s actual authority but on the apparent authority. Summers v. Salomon- a nephew act as a buyer for a Jeweler. Later he left his employment and ordered some Jewelry.
The court held that the defendant had to pay. The representation does not have to be express. It may be implied from conduct.
Drew v. Nun- the lunacy of a principal if so great as to render him incapable of contracting for himself puts an end to an authority to contract for him previously given to him.When an agent holds out an agent as having authority to contract for him and afterwards becomes lunatic he is liable for the contracts made by the agent after the agency with a person who the authority has so been held out and who had no notice of the lunacy.
Facts; the claim was for a pair of boots and shoes supplied to the plaintiff by the defendant on the order of the defendant’s wife. The defendant at times dealt with the plaintiff on credit. Grunter v. Beaten- their Lordships quoted with approval the following dicta from Freeman & Locker vs.. Buckshot Park Properties (Manage) Ltd. (1964) 2 CB 480]:”The representation which creates “apparent” authority may take a variety of forms of which the commonest is representation by conduct, that is, by permitting the agent to act in some way in the conduct of the principals business with other persons.
“let was further held:”Len applying that principle the correct approach is to consider the whole of the conduct of Clearances Ltd. In the light of all the circumstances in order to determine whether that conduct amounted to a holding UT by them of Mr..
Beaten as having the necessary authority: see per Lord Justice Browne-Wilkinson in The Rafael at p. 1 . It is not right to concentrate on the use the word “usually” by Lord Justice Diploid in Freeman & Locker at p. 503 and to tree it as decisive in this case on the ground that an aviation manager cannot be regarded as “usually” having authority to make a contract for air taxi work when the aviation business of which he is manager does not include such work. “Agency as is well- settled is a legal concept which is employed by the Court when it becomes necessary o explain and resolve the problems created by certain fact situation.
In other words, when the existence of an agency relationship would help to decide an individual problem, and the facts permits a court to conclude that such a relationship existed at a material time, then whether or not any express or implied consent to the creation of an agency may have been given by one party to another, the court is entitled to conclude that such relationship was in existence at the time, and for the purpose in question. Representation: There must be representation that the agent has authority in terms of transactions. There must be positive representation, silence is not enough.Case: Taro 1990 2 LURE 51- Mammas v Undergo- Apparent authority as agent can arise where an employer by words or conduct has represented that his employee, who has purported to act on behalf of the employer, is authorized to do what he is purporting to do. Ostensible authority depends on a holding out by the principal which creates an estoppels. Lord Keith said: “Ostensible authority is general in character, arising when the principal has placed the agent in a position which in the outside world is generally regarded s carrying authority to enter into transactions of the kind in question.The acts of the purported agent are not themselves evidence and are irrelevant to establish such agency as against the principal. ” At the end of the day the question is whether the circumstance under which a servant has made the fraudulent misrepresentation which has caused loss to an innocent party contracting with him are such as to make it Just for the employer to bear the loss.
Such circumstances exist where the employer by words or conduct has induced the injured party to believe that the revert was acting in the lawful course of the employer’s business.They do not exist where such belief, although it is present, has been brought about through misguided reliance on the servant himself, when the servant is not authorized to do what he is purporting to do, when what he is purporting to do is not within the class of acts that an employee in his position is usually authorized to do and when the employer has done nothing to represent that he is authorized to do it. ” The representation of the principal is binding on him if it is made by him or someone acting on his behalf.The agent’s own statement of his own authority is not enough to give rise to apparent authority.
Case: First Energy Ltd v. Hungarian Into Bank- An agent who had no apparent authority to conclude a transaction might nevertheless have apparent authority to make representations of fact concerning it, such as the fact that his principal had given the necessary approval for it. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the defendant, Hungarian International Bank Ltd, and upheld a decision of Judge Michael Shakers SQ, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge in the CommercialCourt on 23 October 1991, giving Judgment for the plaintiff, First Energy (I-J) Ltd. The case concerned an alleged contract under which the defendant was to provide the plaintiff with business finance. One of the issues was whether the defendant’s agent had ostensible authority to communicate the offer upon which the contract was based.
The Judge held that he did, and that the plaintiff accepted that offer, so creating the contract. LORD JUSTICE STEEN said a theme that ran through the law of contract was that the reasonable expectations of honest men must be protected.It was not a rule or principle of law. But if the prima facie solution too problem ran counter to reasonable expectations of honest men, this criterion sometimes required a rigorous re-examination of the problem to ascertain whether the law did compel demonstrable unfairness.
In the present case, if their Lordships were to accept the implications which the defendant had placed on observations of the House of Lords in Armadas Ltd v Mandamus AS (1986) 1 AC 717, it would frustrate the reasonable expectations of the parties.The plaintiffs case was that the defendant’s agent, while not authorized to enter into the transaction, did have ostensible authority to ammunition his head office’s approval of the financing facility. He had sent the plaintiff a letter to this effect, which the Judge held amounted to an offer capable of acceptance by the plaintiff. The law recognized that in modern commerce an agent who had no apparent authority to conclude a particular transaction might sometimes be clothed with apparent authority to make representations of fact. A decision that the agent did not have such authority would defeat the reasonable expectation of the parties.It would also fly in the face of the way in which in practice negotiations were inducted between trading banks and trading customers who sought commercial loans.
The third party must know the representation and rely on it. Estoppels can occur after the event which the principal was stopped from denying the authority of the agent: Spiro v. Linter 1973 1 WALL 1003- Mr.. Linter as sole owner wished to sell his house so he asked his wife to instruct an estate agent to find a purchaser.
Unknown to him his wife entered into an agreement with Spiro to sell. Mrs..Linter represented herself as principal so there was at this stage of apparent authority. When Mr.
. Linter discovered the truth he did nothing to disabuse Spiro. In fact he allowed Spiro to incur expenses with architects and builders on the property. Before the sale was completed Mr.. Linter attempted to sell to another for a higher price.
Spiro brought an action for specific performance. Mr.. Linter claimed his wife had no authority to sell on his behalf and his wife made the contract as his principal and as she did not own the house an action of specific performance for her must fail. Held Mr..Linter by allowing Spiro to incur expenses on the property w/o disclosing the truth was stopped from denying the contract of Spiro and specific performance was ordered. Agent of Necessity This arises when the person acted in emergency to protect property of another.
His action may be deemed authorized even in the absence of actual authority. For example: Storage of Goods – the principals place is burning down and then you take the property. The agent can use necessity as a defense to a possible claim by the principal for trespass The test for necessity is: 1. It must be an emergency 2.It must have been impossible to gain permission from the principal at that time 3. The agent must have acted genuinely in the principals interest and not of his own 4. The agent must have acted reasonably Cases: Springer v. Great Western Railway- Great Western Railway Company as defendant agreed to carry plaintiffs tomatoes from Channels Island to London, by ship to Wentworth and by train to London.
The ship was stopped at Channels Island for three days due to bad weather. Eventually, when the ship arrived at Wentworth, defendant’s employees were on strike, tomatoes were unloaded by casual laborers but it was delayed for two days.At that time, some of the tomatoes were found to be bad. So, defendant decided to sell the tomatoes as they felt that tomatoes could not arrive in Covent Garden market in a good and sellable condition. When plaintiff found out about this, plaintiff wanted to claim damages from defendant. The court was held that plaintiff was entitled to damages because defendant ought to have communicated with the plaintiff when the ship arrived at Wentworth to get instruction. As defendant has failed to communicate with plaintiff when they could have done so, thus, there was no agency of necessity.Chock Star 1989 2 KGB 42- where a ship’s master had purported to enter into a salvage agreement on behalf of the ship and its solitary cargo owner.
Salad L], set out the four criteria of agency of a necessity. An agency of necessity would only be considered to have arisen if all the circumstances (a) it is necessary to take salvage assistance, (b) it is not reasonable practicable to communicate with the cargo owners or to obtain their instructions, (c) the master or the ship owners acted bona fide in the interests of the cargo and (d) it is reasonable for the master or ship-owner to enter into the contract.The requirements were not in the Chock star. Prater v Abilities. Stamp & Haycock Ltd- where, during the first world war an agent of a fur merchant in Bucharest bought El ,900 worth of skins. The merchant paid for the skins but owing to the war the agene couldn’t dispatch the skins to him. The skins increased in value and the agent sold them. There was no agency of necessity the court held.
The skins were not likely to drop in value and could be preserved by proper storage.Note Agency by co- habitation (self reading) Ratification Requirements: 1. The agent must have act not in his own name but in the principals name.
2. Case: Slightly Masthead v. Duran (1901) AC 240- An undisclosed principal cannot ratify an unauthorized act by an agent according to this rule is Justified in that if it appears to third party that he is dealing with a principal then it is not Justifiable for the real principal latter to ratify the agent’s actions.The C. A. Thought the principal should be able to ratify, but the House of Lords disagreed. The case involved the purchase of wheat at a price higher than the agent had authority to pay.
The principal having refused to ratify refused to take delivery. It was held that he was not bound to do so. The principal must’ve been in existence at the time the agent acted on his behalf. The principal must have been in existence for the agent to act on its behalf.
Case: Keller v.