References: [1865] EngR 365, (1865) 3 H & C 639, (1865) 159 ER 682
Links: Commonlii
Coram: Bramwell B
When a person who purports to act as an agent is not in a position to say to his principal, ‘I have been acting as your agent, and I have done my duty by you,’ he is not entitled to recover any commission from that principal.
Bramwell B said: ‘It is true that . . the defendant has had the benefit (if it be one) of the plaintiff’s services. But the defendant is in a position to say, ‘What you have done has been done as a volunteer, and does not come within the line of your duties as agent.” And in the same case Martin B. quoted the passage from Story on Agency, where it is said: ‘In this connection, also, it seems proper to state another rule, in regard to the duties of agents, which is of general application, and that is, that, in matters touching the agency, agents cannot act so as to bind their principals, where they have an adverse interest in themselves. This rule is founded upon the plain and obvious consideration, that the principal bargains, in the employment, for the exercise of the disinterested skill, diligence, and zeal of the agent, for his own exclusive benefit. It is a confidence necessarily reposed in the agent, that he will act with a sole regard to the interests of his principal, as far as he lawfully may; and even if impartiality could possibly be presumed on the part of an agent, where his own interests were concerned, that is not what the principal bargains for; and in many cases, it is the very last thing which would advance his interests. The seller of an estate must be presumed to be desirous of obtaining as high a price as can fairly be obtained therefor; and the purchaser must equally be presumed to desire to buy it for as low a price as he may.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Imageview Management Ltd -v- Jack CA (Bailii, [2009] EWCA Civ 63, Times, [2009] WLR (D) 56, WLRD, [2009] 1 All ER (Comm) 921, [2009] 2 All ER 666, [2009] 1 BCLC 724, [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 436, [2009] Bus LR 1034)
The appellant company acted for the respondent footballer in placing him with a football club. The respondent said that he had also taken a payment from the club, nominally for arranging a work permit. The respondent said this was improper. The . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 16-Dec-15 Ref: 281277
