Agency - 1970- 1979

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 10 cases, and was prepared on 04 October 2008.

Gilchrist Watt and Sanderson Pty Ltd -v- York Products Pty Ltd [1970] 1 WLR 1262
1970 PC Lord Pearson	Agency, Commonwealth	Casemap 1 Cites 1 Citers
	(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.

McCann -v- Pow [1975] 1 All ER 129
1975 CA Lord Denning MR, Orr LJ, Browne LJ	Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	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"

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.

Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B V -v- Romalpa Aluminium Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 676
16 Jan 1976 CA Megaw, Roskill and Goff L.JJ	Insolvency, Company, Equity, Agency	Casemap
	The seller sold aluminium to the defendant, but included a clause under which they retained title in the materials sold, even if mixed in with manufactured goods, until they had been paid for the metal. The defendants appealed a finding that the receivers held the proceeds of sale of the manufactured goods on trust for the plaintiffs. Held: The appeal failed. The intention of the clause was to secure for as long as possible payment of the purchase price of the aluminium. There had to be read into the contract a duty on the defendant to act under the fiduciary relationship of principal and agent, bailor and bailee, as was contemplated in the clause. The plaintiffs could trace the proceeds of the sub-sales, and recover them.
	Link[s] omitted

Townsends Carriers Ltd -v- Pfizer Ltd [1977] 33 P&CR 361
1977 Sir Robert Megarry V.-C	Landlord and Tenant, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	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.

Willis -v- British Car Auctions [1978] 1 WLR 438
1978 CA Denning LJ	Torts - Other, Agency	Casemap 1 Cites
	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.

Willis and Son -v- British Car Auctions Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 438
1978 CA Lord Denning	Contract, Agency	Casemap 1 Citers
	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."

Mahesan -v- Malaysia Government Officers Co-operative Housing Society [1979] AC 374
1979 PC	Torts - Other, Agency	1 Citers
	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

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	Casemap 1 Citers
	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 . . ."

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 LLJ	Legal Professions, Contract, Land, Agency	Casemap 1 Cites
	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."
	Link[s] omitted