Agency - 1200- 1799
Law relating to Agency, Powers of Attorney, Enduring Powers of Attorney etc.
The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database.
lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.
This page lists 3 cases, and was prepared on 04 January 2012.
| | |
| Southern -v- How [1616-1618] J Bridg 125; Cro Jac 468; Poph 143; 123 ER 1248 |
|
1616 Montague J, Doderidge J |
Agency |

1 Citers
|
A trader left counterfeit jewels with a factor who in turn arranged for an agent to sell them as genuine articles. The purchaser discovered the fraud, and had the agent arrested and had the money returned to him. Held: No action lay as between the agent and the original trader. Even though the agent was inocent of the fraud, especially where thejury found no instruction from the trader to the factor to find an agent or to ask the factor to conceal the nature of the items. The factot having been authorised himself could not delegate that agency without authority from the trader.
Doderidge J: 'An action upon the case was brought in the Common Pleas by a clothier, that whereas he had gained great reputation for his making of his cloth, and by reason whereof he had great utterance to his great benefit and profit, and that he used to set his mark to the cloth whereby it should be known to be his cloth, and another clothier perceiving it, used the same mark to his ill-made cloth on purpose to deceive him, it was resolved that an action did well lie'. |
| | |
| Coggs -v- Bernard (1703) 1 Sm LC (13th Ed) 175; [1703] 1 Salk 26; [1703] 1 Com 133; [1703] Holt KB 13; [1703] 2 Ld Raym 909; [1703] 3 Salk 11; [1703] 92 ER 107; [1703] 36 Digest (Rep 1) 32 |
|
1703 Lord Holt CJ, Powell J |
Negligence, Agency |
Casemap
1 Citers
|
The defendant had care of the plaintiff's cask of brandy. He broke the cask and spilt the brandy. Held: A bailment can exist notwithstanding that it is gratuitous, i.e. without consideration passing from the bailor to the bailee. The declaration that defendant was not a common porter and had been given nothing for his pains, was good, though there was no consideration. Gould J said: 'The reason for the action is, the particular trust reposed in the defendant, to which he has concurred by his assumption, and in the executing which he has miscarried by his neglect.' The historical approach of the common law to the question of negligence found its inspiration in Roman law concepts, as in the case in the law of bailment. As to the setting up of a nominal contractual obligation to obviate difficulties in negligence: 'Secondly it is objected, that there is no consideration to ground this promise upon, and therefore the undertakings is but nudum pactum. But to this I answer, that the owner's trusting him with the goods is a sufficient consideration to oblige him to careful management. Indeed if the agreement had been executory, to carry these brandies from one place to the other such a day, the defendant had not been bound to carry them. But this is a different case, for assumpsit does not only signify a future agreement, but in such a case as this, it signifies an actual entry upon the thing, and taking the trust upon himself. And if a man will do that, and miscarries in the performance of his trust, an action will lie against him for that, though nobody would have compelled him to do the thing.'
Holt CJ said that there were six classes of bailment. |
| Link[s] omitted |
| | |
| Saunderson -v- Marr [1788] EngR 230; (1788) 1 H Bl 75; (1788) 126 ER 46 (A) |
|
17 Nov 1788
|
Agency, Children |
|
| A warrant of attorney given by an infant is absolutely void, and the Court will not confirm it, though the infant appear to have given it (knowing that it was not valid), for the purpose of collusion. |
| Link[s] omitted |
|