Agency - 1960- 1969

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 130,000 case listings, and over 95,000 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 6 cases, and was prepared on 15 November 2008.

Midland Silicones Ltd -v- Scruttons Ltd [1962] AC 446; [1961] UKHL 4
6 Dec 1961 HL Viscount Simonds, Lord Reid	Agency, Contract	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	The defendant stevedores, engaged by the carrier, negligently damaged a drum containing chemicals. When the cargo-owners sued in tort, the stevedores unsuccessfully attempted to rely on a limitation clause contained in the bill of lading between the carriers and the cargo-owners. Held: The House was not prepared to hold that the principle of vicarious immunity was as in the ratio of Elder, Dempster. The court described four conditions for establishing that a contract was made as agent for a third party who could thus take benefit, namely: Was the third party intended to benefit from the contractual term, whether it was clear that the contracting party was also contracting as agent for the third party, whether he had authority so to do, and whether any difficulty with consideration was overcome. As to the doctrine of privity of contract, Viscount Simonds said: "[H]eterodoxy, or, as some might say, heresy, is not the more attractive because it is dignified by the name of reform. . . . If the principle of jus quaesitum tertio is to be introduced into our law, it must be done by Parliament after a due consideration of its merits and demerits. I should not be prepared to give it my support without a greater knowledge than I at present possess of its operation in other systems of law."
	Link[s] omitted

Mercantile Credit Co Ltd -v- Hamblin [1965] 2 QB 242; [1964] 1 WLR 423
1964 CA Pearson LJ	Contract, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	"There is no rule of law that in a hire purchase transaction the dealer never is, or always is, acting as agent for the finance company or as agent for the customer.Nevertheless, the dealer is to some extent an intermediary between the customer and the finance company, and he may well have in a particular case some ad hoc agencies to do particular things on behalf of one or the other or, it may be, both of those two parties." and "In a typical hire purchase transaction the dealer is a party in his own right, selling his car to the finance company, and he is acting primarily on his own behalf and not as general agent for either of the other two parties. There is no need to attribute to him an agency in order to account for his participation in the transaction. Nevertheless the dealer is to some extent an intermediary between the customer and the finance company, and he may well have in a particular case some ad-hoc agencies to do particular things on behalf of one or other or it may be both of those two parties." An advocate should draw the attention of the court to the fact that an act relied on by a party is unlawful, if that is the case.

Garnac Grain Co Inc -v- HMF Faure and Fairclough [1967] 2 All ER 353
1967 Lord Pearson	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	Lord Pearson said: "The relationship of principal and 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 do not recognise it themselves and even if they have professed to disclaim it . . The consent however must be given by each of them either expressly or by words and conduct."

Harmond Properties Ltd -v- Gajdzis [1968] 1 WLR 1858
1968 CA	Landlord and Tenant, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The County Court decided that a notice to quit given to a tenant by a director of the landlord company in his own name was valid. Held: The decision was correct. The director had carried out the letting and acted as if he were the landlord in every way. He was held to have been the general agent of the landlord.

Blake & Co. -v- Sohn [1969] 3 All ER 123
1969 Nield J	Contract, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	The defendant had falsely represented to their estate agents that they had been in undisputed exclusive possession of part of the land to be sold for 20 years and were able to prove title for the land. In fact, there was a long running dispute about title to the land. Contracts were exchanged but the sale could not be completed because of the vendors' inability to complete the purchase. The purchaser successfully sued for rescission of the contract, whereupon the estate agents sued for their commission or damages. The estate agents contended, inter alia, that there was an implied term in the agreement between themselves and the vendors to the effect that the vendors had and would make out a good title to the property. Held: Nield J rejected the contention. There was no justification for implying such a term. The representation as to undisputed possession did not amount to fraud.

Branwhite -v- Worcester Works Finance Ltd [1969] 1 AC 552
1969 HL Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Wilberforce, Lrd Reid	Agency, Contract	Casemap 1 Cites
	A dealer may for some ad hoc purpose be the agent of a finance company. Lord Wilberforce said that while in all hire purchase cases much must depend on the individual facts "such questions as arise of the vicarious responsibility of finance companies for the acts or defaults of dealers cannot be resolved without reference to the general mercantile structure within which they arise, or if one prefers the expression, to commercial reality." After citing Garnac, he went on: "The significant words for the present purpose are 'if they have agreed to what amounts in law to such a relationship'These I understand as pointing to the fact that while agency must derive from consent, the consent need not necessarily be to the relationship of principal and agency itself (indeed the existence of it may be denied) but may be to a state of facts on which the law imposes the consequences which results from Agency. It is consensual not contractual. So interpreted this formulation allows the establishment of an agency relationship in such cases as the present."
	Statute References omitted