Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Agency - From: 1970 To: 1979

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 02 April 2018.

 
Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd v York Products Pty Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 1262
1970
PC
Lord Pearson
Agency, Commonwealth
(New South Wales - Australia) The defendants were stevedores who had lost two cases of clocks that they had received as sub-bailees of the shipowners, who in turn owed a duty to deliver them to the plaintiffs under the bills of lading. Held: The defendants were liable. They: "took upon themselves an obligation to the plaintiffs to exercise due care for the safety of the goods, although there was no contractual relation or attornment between the defendants and the plaintiffs." A sub-bailee had only voluntarily taken into his possession the goods of another if he has sufficient notice that a person other than the bailee is interested in the goods so that it can properly be said that in addition to his duties to the bailee he has, by taking the goods into his custody, assumed towards that other person the responsibility for the goods which is characteristic of a bailee.
1 Cites

1 Citers



 
 Lowenstein and Co Limited v Durable Wharfage Co Limited; 1973 - [1973] 1 Lloyds Rep 221
 
McCann v Pow [1975] 1 All ER 129
1975
CA
Lord Denning MR, Orr LJ, Browne LJ
Agency
The estate agents, McCann, claimed a commission, earned as they alleged in their particulars of claim through the activities of persons they described as their "subagents", a firm called Douglas & Co. They had taken a number of steps: they had prepared particulars, they had taken photographs, they had advertised the premises, they had prepared the particulars, they had sent the particulars to other agents. But they had not given the vendor's name or telephone number to the ultimate purchaser. Held: The claim was disallowed. The plaintiffs as principal agents had no authority to appoint sub-agents. Lord Denning: ""The introduction of Mr Rudd was not made by the agents, John McCann & Co, nor was it made by any authorised sub-agent"
1 Citers


 
Sorrell v Finch [1976] 2 All ER 371; [1977] AC 728; [1976] 2 WLR 833; 120 Sol Jo 353
1976
HL

Agency
A purchaser had paid a deposit to the estate agent, but sought its return before contracts had been exchanged. Held: In the absence of any express extension of authority to a estate agent or auctioneer to receive a pre-contract deposit, the potential purchaser is, at all times until the contract is entered into, the only person with any claim or right to the deposit. If the agent chooses to forward such deposit, then he must bear the loss. The vendor at that stage has no liability to repay the deposit. After completion, the agent holds any deposit for the vendor subject only to his right to deduct his commission and expenses. In a dispute between the vendor and purchaser, the agent should interplead.


 
 United Dominions Trust Ltd v Western; 1976 - [1976] QB 513

 
 Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B V v Romalpa Aluminium Ltd; CA 16-Jan-1976 - [1976] 1 WLR 676
 
Levison v Patent Steam Carpet Cleaning Co Ltd [1978] 1 QB 69; [1977] 3 All ER 498
1977
CA
Lord Denning MR, Orr LJ, Sir David Cairns
Contract, Agency
A valuable Chinese carpet had been taken for cleaning but was lost by the bailee. The bailee said that his liability was limited under the terms of the contract to a particular sum. A fundamental breach is "a breach going to the root of the contract". The claimant pleaded by way of reply that the carpet had been lost by reason of a fundamental breach. The question arose whether the burden lay upon the bailor to establish a fundamental breach of contract or upon the bailee to establish that there had been no fundamental breach of contract. Held: Whilst recognising that there had been conflicting decisions, the burden lay upon the bailee to establish that there been no fundamental breach.
Lord Denning MR said: "Upon principle, I should have thought that the burden was on the cleaners to prove that they were not guilty of a fundamental breach. After all, Mrs. Levison does not know what happened to it. The cleaners are the ones who know, or should know, what happened to the carpet, and the burden should be on them to say what it was . . It is, therefore, a moot point for decision. On it I am clearly of opinion that, in a contract of bailment, when a bailee seeks to escape liability on the ground that he was not negligent or that he was excused by an exception or limitation clause, then he must show what happened to the goods. He must prove all the circumstances known to him in which the loss or damage occurred. If it appears that the goods were lost or damaged by a slight breach - not going to the root of the contract- he may be protected by the exemption or limitation clause. But, if he leaves the cause of loss or damage undiscovered and unexplained - then I think he is liable: because it is then quite likely that the goods were stolen by one of his servants; or delivered by a servant to the wrong address; or damaged by reckless or wilful misconduct; all of which the offending servant will conceal and not make known to his employer. Such conduct would be a fundamental breach against which the exemption or limitation clause will not protect him."
Orr LJ said: "as a matter both of justice and of common sense the burden ought to rest on the bailee who, if the goods have been lost whilst in his possession, is both more likely to know the facts and in a better position to ascertain then than the bailor."
Sir David Cairns said: "however difficult it may sometimes be for a bailee to prove a negative, he is at least in a better position than the bailor to know what happened to the goods while in his possession."
1 Citers



 
 Smelter Corporation v O'Driscoll; 1977 - [1977] IR 307
 
Townsends Carriers Ltd v Pfizer Ltd [1977] 33 P&CR 361
1977

Sir Robert Megarry VC
Landlord and Tenant, Agency
A break notice had been served not by the tenant company but by an associated company, the service not being on the landlord company but an associated company. Held: Because the tenant and the landlord had allowed their respective associated companies to deal with the property as if they were landlord and tenant respectively in respect of matters such as an increase in the rent and variations of the lease, the break notice had been validly served.
1 Citers


 
Mahesan v Malaysia Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society [1979] AC 374; [1978] 2 All ER 405
1978
PC

Torts - Other, Agency, Damages
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.
1 Citers


 
English v Dedham Vale Properties Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 93; [1978] 1 All ER 382
1978
ChD
Slade J
Trusts, Agency
A prospective purchaser of a property had applied for planning permission in the name of the vendor without telling the vendor what it was doing. Held: The purchaser could fairly and accurately be described, as Slade J described the purchaser, as a 'self-appointed agent' for the vendor. As such the purchaser did owe fiduciary obligations to the vendor, and was liable to account for any profit made as a result of the self-appointed agency.
The categories of fiduciary relationships are not closed
1 Citers


 
Willis and Son v British Car Auctions Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 438
1978
CA
Lord Denning
Contract, Agency
A car on hire purchase was sold and delivered by auctioneers on the instructions of the hirer. The court was asked whether the auctioneers' liability was affected by the fact that the car had been sold under their provisional bid procedure. Held: The auctioneers were liable. Lord Denning:"It is now, I think, well established that if an auctioneer sells goods by knocking down with his hammer at an auction and thereafter delivers them to the purchaser - then although he is only an agent - then if the vendor has no title to the goods, both the auctioneer and the purchaser are liable in conversion to the true owner, no matter how innocent the auctioneer may have been in handling the goods or the purchaser in acquiring them: see Barker v Furlong . . and Consolidated Co. v Curtis & Son . . This state of law has been considered by the Law Reform Committee . . in its 18th Report (Conversion and Detinue) (1971), Cmnd. 4774 as to innocent handlers: paragraphs 46-50. But Parliament has made no change in it: no doubt it would have done so in the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 if it had thought fit to do so."
1 Citers


 
Willis v British Car Auctions [1978] 1 WLR 438
1978
CA
Denning LJ
Torts - Other, Agency
A car on hire purchase was sold and delivered by auctioneers on the instructions of the hirer. The main issue was whether the auctioneers' liability was affected by the fact that the car had been sold under their provisional bid procedure. Held: The auctioneers were liable. It is well established that if an auctioneer sells goods by knocking down with his hammer at an auction and thereafter delivers them to the purchaser - then although he is only an agent - then if the vendor has no title to the goods, both the auctioneer and the purchaser are liable in conversion to the true owner, no matter how innocent the auctioneer may have been in handling the goods or the purchaser in acquiring them.
1 Cites


 
Port Swettenham Authority v T W Wu and Co (M) Sdn Bhd [1979] AC 580; [1978] UKPC 13
19 Jun 1978
PC

Vicarious Liability, Agency
A gratuitous bailee assumes a duty to take reasonable care of the chattel: "This standard, although high, may be a less exacting standard than that which the common law requires of a bailee for reward [but] the line between the two standards is a very fine line, difficult to discern and impossible to define."
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Metropolitan Properties v Cordery (1980) 39 P & CR 10; (1979) 251 EG 567; (1979) 39 P&CR 10
1979
CA

Legal Professions, Agency, Landlord and Tenant
The tenant sought to impose knowledge by the landlord of the condition of the property. The landlord employed porters in the building. Held: The presence of the porters was sufficient to fix the landlord with knowledge of the breach of his covenant. The Court applied the principle of deemed knowledge in the law of agency: " When any fact or circumstance, material to any transaction, business or matter in respect of which an agent is employed, comes to his knowledge in the course of such employment, and is of such a nature that it is his duty to communicate it to his principal, the principal is deemed to have notice thereof as from the time when he would have received such notice if the agent had performed his duty, and taken such steps to communicate the fact or circumstance as he ought reasonably to have taken . . ."
1 Citers


 
Domb and Another v Isoz [1980] 2 WLR 565; [1980] Ch 548; [1980] 1 All ER 942
29 Nov 1979
CA
Buckley, Bridge and Templeman LJJ
Legal Professions, Contract, Land, Agency
In a chain of conveyancing transactions, a solicitor sent his contract and deposit to his vendor's solicitor, asking him to hold it to his order pending exchange. On the next day, that vendor's solicitors agreed to an exchange of contracts over the telephone on his own purchase, but his client then told him not to proceed. The solicitor did not deliver the contract on that purchase, and claimed that under the postal rule, exchange had not taken place. The purchaser appealed a finding that there was no contract. Held: A contract had been created. The solicitor had his client's authority to exchange in this manner, and the contract was made at the time of the agreement on the telephone. The contract could come into existence before the posting of the second part of the contract, which would be the normal rule for postal acceptance.
Buckley LJ: "the essential characteristic of exchange of contracts is that each party shall have such a document signed by the other party in his possession or control so that, at his own need, he can have the document available for his own use. Exchange of a written contract for sale is in my judgment effected so soon as each part of the contract, signed by the vendor or the purchaser as the case may be, is in the actual or constructive possession of the other party or of his solicitor. Such possession need not be actual or physical possession; possession by an agent of the party or of his solicitor, in such circumstances that the party or solicitor in question has control over the document and can at any time procure its actual physical possession will, in my opinion, suffice. In such a case the possession of the agent is the possession of the principal. A party's solicitor employed to act in respect of such a contract has, subject to express instructions, implied authority to effect exchange of contracts and so to make the bargain binding upon his client. This he can, in my judgment, do by any method which is effectual to constitute exchange."
BRIDGE LJ: "A solicitor acting for a vendor or a purchaser who holds his client's signed part of the contract has his client's ostensible authority to effect exchange of contracts."
Templeman LJ: "In my judgment a client impliedly authorises, and ostensibly authorises, his solicitor to effect exchange of contracts in such manner and by such agents as the solicitor may think fit. The client confers power to exchange, but is not interested in the machinery or method of exchange, which is a matter for the solicitor and the general law."
1 Cites

[ lip ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.