Contracts in Commercial Law

Contracts in Commercial policeCOMMERCIAL fair playfulness where a someone obligations as constituent, the occupy is that of the drumhead, and non that of the agent and leading(predicate) facie the hardly individual who may sue is the important and the only person who may be sued is the principal.to that rule, there are of course many exceptions Per W right-hand(a) J in MONTGOMERIE V UNITED KINGDOM MUTUAL STEAMSHIP converse the situations in which an agent may be liable to a trine fellowship.A relationship of agency arises where one person, an agent, acts on behalf of a nonher person, a principal, in making legal organisations with leash parties that confer rights and impose obligations on the jumper lead.It is the headspring that substructure sue and be sued on the contracts make mingled with itself and the Third Party (Richards, p.449)1. However, in some cases, the operator may be personally or enouncely liable to the Third Party. Where there is joint liabilit y, the Third Party must decide whether to sue the Agent, the Principal or both.An agent ordain be liable when he intends to enter into an pledge as joint principal. This may be apparent from the express hurt of the agreement, or from the way in which he signs it. An utilisation of such(prenominal) arrangement can be found in a solicitors partnership, where each partner is an agent of the firm and any agreement entered into by them is as agent and joint principal (Denny, p.33)2.The case of Shack v Anthony (1813)3 demonstrates that where an agent executes a deed on behalf of the principal in his keep back got cognomen, he will be held personally liable. For the Principal to take the improvement of the deed, he must be named on it and it is not enough that the Principal is simply disclosed.In some cases, it is trade usage and custom that succumb agents liability at a lower place a contract. For example, insurance brokers take liability for non requital of premiums, and ship brokers accept liability for payment of charter parties (Fleet v Murton 1871)4. In both examples, liability is joint with the Principal. A further commercial example is found with Del Credere agents, who take personal liability as surety for their Principal. some(prenominal) outcomes can follow from contracts made with a non existent principal. If the contract is made prior to the incorporation of a company as in Kelner v Baxter (1886)5, the Agent will be held personally liable. If the contract is entered into where the Principal is in fact fictitious, again the Agent will incur personal liability, and the kindred applies where the agent uses someone elses name. If however the identity of the other person is material to why the tercet troupe entered into the contract, the agent will be liable for misrepresentation (The Remco 1984)6.An agent will incur liability to a third party if by his conduct he indicates that he intends to be liable to that party. He may, for example, enter into an agreement where there is no indite made to an agency, and which is sign-language(a) in his own name or profession. In this scenario, he is jointly liable with the Principal. A further example of such liability that might arise can be found in sika Contracts Ltd v B L Gill and Closeglen Properties Ltd (1978)7, where an agent playing on behalf of a disclosed but unnamed principal signed contracts in his own name and profession, and was held to be personally liable. This situation could stand been avoided had the agent added as agent after his signature, although the mere use of the cry agent may indicate every a description or qualification and is not therefore conclusive (Gadd v Houghton (1876)8, Halsburys s.184)9.The agent will always be jointly liable to the third party when playacting for an undisclosed Principal because, for all intents and purposes, he appears to the third party to be the Principal (Halsburys s.18310, Saxon v Blake (1861)11. Although it is the cont ract that the Agent has entered into that the Principal is entitled to enforce, the Third Party retains the right to elect to sue either the Agent or the Principal if he subsequently becomes disclosed (Bradgate, p.16912, Richards p.456). The agent is not however liable where the contract is entered into with an unnamed (but disclosed) Principal, unless there is manifest of intention to be personally liable (Benton v Campbell, Parker Co Ltd 192513).The to a higher place examples consider where the agent has found himself either jointly liable under the original contract, or personally liable and in fact, he becomes the principal and takes on all rights and liabilities of that contract, which is binding.However, the case of Collen v Wright (1857)14 establishes that where an agent enters into a exercise as if he were acting for a Principal and by implication, he rationalises that he has the Principals business office to act in the be, if the third party acts in reliance on his r epresentation and it transpires that he has no such authority he may be liable to the third party for breach of warranty. This principle is based on an implied unilateral contract which is formed when the agent, by implication, promises that he will warrant he has authority if the third party enters into a contract with the principal. By entering into the contract with the principal, the third party accepts the offer of the agent and provides consideration for the agents promise. This brings about a collateral contract between the third party and the agent. Where the Principal remains liable under the main contract, the agent is not liable as the third party has suffered no loss notwithstanding the agents lack of authority (Richards, p.457).Liability under this principal can be extended to warranting the authority of a fellow agent, as was the case in Chapleo v Brunswick (1881)15. The agent may also regain themselves liable to any third party in the transaction for example, the owe company in a property transaction (Penn v Bristol and westernmost 1997)16.The third party may claim damages under the familiar principals of contract natural law, being all damages that flow naturally and now from the breach (Hadley v Baxendale (1854)17, the aim being to put the third party back in the position he was in had the breach not occurred (Suleman v Shahsavari 198918, Nimmo v Habton Farms 200319). Liability is strict and there is no defense reaction in saying that the agent acted innocently in the matter (Yonge v Toynbee 191020). However, the come in that can be recovered is limited by the amount the third party would have been able to recover from the Principal so if, for example, the Principal becomes insolvent, the amount is limited to how much the third party could have claimed from the Principals insolvency.In addition to liability for breach of warrant of authority, if an agent deliberately or recklessless misstates his authority he will be liable to the thi rd party in the tort of deceit (Derry v Peek 188921, Richards p.200). However, fraud is very difficult to prove and rarely gives right to recovery against an agent. He can also be liable for derelict misstatement under the principle in Hedley Byrne Co v Heller Partners (1963)22 if it can be shown that there is an assumption of responsibility by the Agent to bring in a special relationship between the Agent and the Third Party, large-minded rise to a duty of care. The Agent, in failing to exercise collectable and reasonable care in representing the extent of their agency or the fact of its existence, breaches that duty. The Third Party would also need to show that they had suffered loss as a result of breach of that duty (Bradgate, p.175).In conclusion, although an agent is not generally liable to the third party where both the existence and name of the Principal have been disclosed, there are many exceptions to the statement of Wright J in Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual S teamship (1891)23 that only a principal can sue and be sued where an agency exists. The law of agency protects third parties who must be able to rely on an agents assertion of authority as a matter of commercial convenience, and where that assertion is incorrect, the agent may find himself jointly or personally liable to the Third Party. As can be seen, it is favourite(a) to explore contractual remedies including breach of warrant of authority rather than slackness or deceit, as these carry with them the strict liability inherent to the law of contract.BibliographyRichards, P (2006) Law of Contract, Pearson, EssexDenny, R (2002) Commercial Law, ITC, BedfordHalsburys Laws of England AgencyBradgate, R (2000) Commercial Law, Butterworths, United KingdomSealy, L.S, Hooley, R, Berwin S.J (2003) Commercial Law Text, Cases and Materials Lexisnexis UK, EnglandFootnotes1 Richards, P (2006) Law of Contract, Pearson, Essex2 Denny, R (2002) Commercial Law, ITC, Bedford3 Shack v Anthony (1813 ) 1 M S 5734 Fleet v Murton (1871) LR 7 QB 5455 Kelner v Baxter (1866) LR 2 CP 1746 The Remco (1984)2 Lloyds Rep 2057 Sika Contracts Ltd v B L Gill and Closeglen Properties Ltd (1978) 9 Build LR 118 Gadd v Houghton (1876) 1 ExD 357, CA9 Halsburys Laws of England Agency 7(1)(i)(184) Liabilities of Agent on Contracts Identity of Principal Not Disclosed10 Halsburys Laws of England Agency 7(1)(i)(183) Liabilities of Agent on Contracts Fact of Agency not disclosed11 Saxon v Blake (1861) 29 Beav 43812 Bradgate, R (2000) Commercial Law, Butterworths, United Kingdom13 Benton v Campbell, Parker Co Ltd 1925 2 KB 41014 Collen v Wright (1857) 8 E E 64715 Chapleo v Brunswick Permanent Benefit Building Society (1881) 6 QBD 696, CA16 Penn v Bristol and West Building Society 1997 3 All ER 470, 1997 1 WLR 1356, CA17 Hadley v Baxendale 1854 9 exch 34118 Suleman v Shahsavari 1989 2 All ER 460, 1988 1 WLR 118119 Nimmo v Habton Farms 2003 1 ALL ER 1136 CA20 Yonge v Toynbee). 1910 1 KB 21521 Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337, 58 LJ Ch 864, HL22 Hedley Byrne Co Ltd v Heller Partners Ltd 1964 AC 465, 1963 2 All ER 575, HL23Montgomerie v United Kingdom Mutual Steamship acquaintance Ltd 1891 1 QB 370