Category Archives: Agency

May 16, 2013

Halifax Mortgage Services Ltd (Formerly BNP Mortgages Ltd) -v- Stepsky and Another; CA 1-Dec-1995

The knowledge of a solicitor, acting for both the borrower and the lender, of the lay clients intentions as regards the future use of the loan, is not to be imputed to the lender, even though the solicitor acts for both parties, and is the lender’s agent.
Morritt LJ discussed section 199: ‘Counsel for the wife submitted that it did not apply as the knowledge came to the knowledge of the solicitors for the lender as such when they were instructed to act on behalf of the lender on 19 June 1990. In the case of the wife it was submitted that the solicitors were not instructed by her as ‘agents to know.’
I do not accept either of these submissions. In my view the section has to be applied in accordance with its terms to the facts of this case. There is no doubt that the information as to the true purpose of the remortgage loan imparted by the husband came to the knowledge of the solicitors on 12 June 1990 as the solicitors for the husband and wife alone for they were not instructed to act for the lenders until 19 June at the earliest. That knowledge once acquired remained with the solicitors and cannot be treated as coming to them again when they were instructed on behalf of the lenders. As counsel for the wife accepted, their knowledge cannot be treated as divided or disposed of and reacquired in that way. The conclusion seems to me to be inescapable, namely that knowledge of the relevant matters facts or things did not come to the solicitors as the solicitors for the lenders. Accordingly it did not come to them ‘as such.’ It was not disputed that the lender is a purchaser within the definition contained in section 205(1)(xxi) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Consequently section 199(1)(ii)…b) precludes the solicitors’ knowledge of the relevant matters or facts being imputed to the lender.’

Court: CA
Date: 01-Dec-1995
Judges: Morritt LJ
Statutes: Law of Property Act 1925 199
Links: Times, Gazette,
References: [1996] Ch 207,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Banking, Legal Professions

Tagged as , ,

May 13, 2013

United Dominions Trust Ltd -v- Western; 1976

A party signing a document containing blanks must envisage that they will be completed, and he will be bound so long as the words inserted fell within the scope of what he could reasonably have expected.

Date: 01-Jan-1976
References: [1976] QB 513,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency

Tagged as

May 12, 2013

Les Affreteurs Reunis SA -v- Leopold Walford (London) Ltd; HL 1919

With regard to Robertson -v- Wait: ‘My Lords, so far as I am aware, that case has not before engaged the attention of this House, and I think it right to say plainly that I agree with that decision and I agree with the reasoning, shortly as it is expressed, upon which the decision was founded. In this connection I would refer to the well-known case of In re Empress Engineering Company. In the judgment of Sir George Jessel MR the principle is examined which, in my view, underlies and is the explanation of the decision in Robertson v. Wait. The Master of the Rolls uses this language: ‘So, again, it is quite possible that one of the parties to the agreement may be the nominee or trustee of the third person. As Lord Justice James suggested to me in the course of the argument, a married woman may nominate somebody to contract on her behalf, but then the person makes the contract really as trustee for somebody else, and it is because he contracts in that character that the cestui que trust can take the benefit of the contract.’ It appears to me plain that for convenience, and under long established practice, the broker in such cases, in effect, nominates the charterer to contract on his behalf, influenced probably by the circumstance that there is always a contract between charterer and owner in which this stipulation, which is to enure to the benefit of the broker, may very conveniently be inserted. In these cases the broker, on ultimate analysis, appoints the charterer to contract on his behalf. I agree therefore with the conclusion arrived at by all the learned judges in Robertson v. Wait, that in such cases charterers can sue as trustees on behalf of the broker.’

Court: HL
Date: 01-Jan-1919
Judges: Lord Birkenhead LC, Viscount Finlay and Lords Atkinson Wrenbury
References: [1919] AC 801,
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Contract, Transport

Tagged as , ,

May 10, 2013

Verderame -v- Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc; CA 2-Apr-1992

The insurance brokers, acting to arrange insurance for a small private limited company did not owe a duty in tort to the directors of that company personally. Where an action was brought in a tort and in breach of contract, damages could not be awarded on the tort where they were not available in contract.

Court: CA
Date: 02-Apr-1992
Judges: Balcombe LJ
References: [1992] BCLC 793, Times, 02-Apr-1992
Cases Cited:
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Company, Contract, Damages, Insurance, Negligence

Tagged as , , , , ,

May 1, 2013

Hovenden and Sons -v- Millhoff; 1900

‘The courts of law in this country have always strongly condemned and, when they could, punished the bribing of agents, and have taken a strong view as to what constitutes a bribe. I believe the mercantile community as a whole appreciate and approve of the court’s views on the subject. But some persons undoubtedly hold laxer views. Not that these persons like the ugly word ‘bribe’ or would excuse the giving of a bribe if that word be used, but they differ from the courts in their view as to what constitutes a bribe. It may, therefore, be well to point out what is a bribe in the eyes of the law. Without attempting an exhaustive definition I may say that the following is one statement of what constitutes a bribe. If a gift be made to a confidential agent with a view of inducing the agent to act in favour of the donor in relation to transactions between the donor and the agent’s principal and that gift is secret as between the donor and the agent – that is to say , without the knowledge and consent of the principal – then the gift is a bribe in the view of the law. If a bribe be once established to the court’s satisfaction then certain rules apply. Amongst them the following are now established, and, in my opinion, rightly established in the interests of morality with the view of discouraging the practice of bribery. First, the court will not enquire into the donor’s motive in giving the bribe, nor allow evidence to be gone into as to the motive. Secondly, the court will presume in favour of the principal and as against the briber and the agent bribed, that the agent was influenced by the bribe; and this presumption is irrebuttable. Thirdly, if the agent be a confidential buyer of goods for his principal from the briber, the court will assume as against the briber that the true price of the goods as between him and the purchaser must be taken to be less than the price paid to, or charged by the vendor by, at any rate, the amount or value of the bribe. If the purchaser alleges loss or damage beyond this, he must prove it ‘.

Date: 01-Jan-1900
Judges: Romer LJ
References: [1900] 83 LT 41,
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Torts - Other

Tagged as ,

April 27, 2013

MHC Consulting Services Ltd -v- Tansell; CA 19-Apr-2000

A company took on employees through an employment agency. The contract of employment was between the agency and the worker who was supplied to the company by the agency. It was the company which had relationship of principal to the worker, and so was responsible for compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act. The absence of a direct contractual relationship was not enough to make that disapply.

Court: CA
Date: 19-Apr-2000
Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 12
Links: Times, Gazette,
References:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Discrimination, Employment

Tagged as , ,

April 20, 2013

Amb Imballaggi Plastici Srl -v- Pacflex Ltd; CA 18-Jun-1999

A party who chose to contract as principal for the purpose of reselling the goods of the vendor on a speculative basis and for a profit, was not to be deemed to be a commercial agent of the first vendor, and so was not entitled to compensation on the breakdown of the relationship.

Court: CA
Date: 18-Jun-1999
Judges: Peter Gibson, Judge, Waller LJJ
Statutes: Commercial Agents (Council Directive) Regulations 1993 (1993 No 3053) Reg 2
Links: Gazette, Times, Bailii,
References: [1999] EWCA Civ 1618, [1999] CLC 1391, [1999] 2 All ER (Comm) 249, [1999] Eu LR 930, (1999) 18 Tr LR 153, [2000] ECC 381
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, European

Tagged as ,

April 9, 2013

Reading -v- Attorney General; HL 1-Mar-1951

The applicant had been a sergeant in the army. He had misused army property and his uniform to assist in smuggling operations. After serving his sentence he now sought repayment of the money he had earned.
Held: His claim failed. The money had been earned by his msuse of his official position, and therefore his employer was entitled to keep the money even though it had been earned unlawfully. The soldier owed a fiduciary duty to the Crown, which was an additional ground on which he lost his claim.

Court: HL
Date: 01-Mar-1951
Judges: Viscount Jowitt LC, Lord Porter, Lord Normand, Lord Oaksey
Links: Bailii,
References: [1951] AC 507, [1951] 1 All ER 617, [1951] 1 TLR 480, 95 Sol Jo 155, [1951] UKHL 1
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Armed Forces, Trusts

Tagged as , ,

April 1, 2013

Mahesan -v- Malaysia Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society; PC 1978

The appellant, the director and employee of a housing society was bribed by a real estate agent, one Manickam, and the appellant then caused the society to buy land at an overvalue. The agent was sued for money had and received (for the amount of the bribe paid in breach of the agent’s fiduciary duty) as well as in tort (for the loss suffered by the society for the overvalued land because of the agent’s fraud).
Held: The profit made by an intermediate purchaser, due to the fraud of the agent, was awarded as compensation on the basis that the principal had lost the opportunity to purchase at the lower price. Bribery and corruption are torts. A defrauded principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe, or for damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given. The plaintiffs need not elect between these alternatives before the time has come for judgment to be entered in their favour in one or other of those causes of action.

Court: PC
Date: 01-Jan-1978
References: [1979] AC 374, [1978] 2 All ER 405
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Damages, Torts - Other

Tagged as , ,

March 31, 2013

Mahesan -v- Malaysia Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society; PC 1978

The appellant, the director and employee of a housing society was bribed by a real estate agent, one Manickam, and the appellant then caused the society to buy land at an overvalue. The agent was sued for money had and received (for the amount of the bribe paid in breach of the agent’s fiduciary duty) as well as in tort (for the loss suffered by the society for the overvalued land because of the agent’s fraud).
Held: The profit made by an intermediate purchaser, due to the fraud of the agent, was awarded as compensation on the basis that the principal had lost the opportunity to purchase at the lower price. Bribery and corruption are torts. A defrauded principal has alternative remedies against both the briber and the agent for money had and received where he can recover the amount of the bribe, or for damages for fraud where he can recover the amount of any actual loss sustained by entering into the transaction in respect of which the bribe was given. The plaintiffs need not elect between these alternatives before the time has come for judgment to be entered in their favour in one or other of those causes of action.

Court: PC
Date: 01-Jan-1978
References: [1979] AC 374, [1978] 2 All ER 405
Cited By:

Leave a Comment

Filed under Agency, Damages, Torts - Other

Tagged as , ,