312 / 330
GAZETTE
sepTemBER
1986
(e)
delegation by necessity
If there are sufficient grounds for an agency of
necessity, then there may also be sufficient grounds for
a delegation of authority.
58
(continued in next issue)
Footnotes
1.
On the duties of an agent see generally,
Fridman's Law of
Agency,
(5th ed., 1983);
Chitty on Contracts,
(25th ed., 1983),
paras. 2295-2304; Borrie,
Commercial Law,
(5th ed., 1980),
chap. I; Lowe,
Commercial Law,
(6th ed., 1983), chap.l; and
Murdoch,
The Law of Estate Agency & Auctions,
(2nd ed.,
1984), pp. 45-66.
On agency in company law see: Keane,
Company Law in the
Republic of Ireland
(1985), paras. 23.03 and 27.27; Ussher,
Company Law in Ireland,
(1986), pp. 143-159; and Forde,
Company Law in Ireland
(1985), paras. 13.5-13.47.
2.
Cf.
Makepeace
-v-
Rogers
(1865) 4 De GJ Sm 649;
Padwick
-v-
Stanley
(1852) 9 Hare 627. Cf. Auctioneers and House Agents
Act, 1947, 1967 and 1973. See also Wylie,
Irish Conveyancing
Low (1978), para. 3.064
et seq.
3.
For the position in English law see Murdoch (
op.cit.,
fn.l),
passim.
4.
On the duty to act see Murdoch
(op.cit.,
fn.l), pp.45-47.
5.
Turpin
-v-
Bilton
(1845) 5 Man. & G. 455. Cf.
North
-v-
Dinan
[1931] IR 468 and
Judd
-v-
Doyle's Motors Ltd.
(1938) 72
ILTR 100.
6.
Turpin
-v-
Bilton ibid.,
fn.5. Cf.
Farmer
-v-
Casey
(1898) 32
ILTR 144.
7.
Ibid.,
fn.5.
8.
Smith
-v-
Lascetles
(1788) 2 Term Rep. 187.
9.
Cf.
Coggs
-v-
Bernard
(1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909; and
Elsee
-v-
Gatward
(1793) 5 Term Rep. 143;
Balfe
-v-
West
(1853) 13 C.B.
466.
10. Murdoch,
op.cit.,
fn. 3, p.46.
11.
Ibid.,
p.46.
12.
Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd.
-v-
Heller & Partners Ltd.
[1964] A.C.
465.
13. Murdoch, (
op.cit.
fn.5); Cf.
Argy Trading Development
Co.
Ltd.
-v-
LapidDevelopments
Ltd.
[1977] 3 All E.R. 785. See also
Cherry
-v-
Allied Insurance Brokers
[1978] I Lloyd's Rep. 274.
14. (1793) 1 Esp. 74.
15.
Webster
-v-
De Tastet
(1797) 7 Term Rep. 157.
16.
Cohen
-v-
Kitted
(1889) 22 QBD 680. Cf.
Fraser
-v-
BN Furman
(Productions) Ltd.
[1967] 1 W.L.R. 898.
17.
Ibid.,
fn. 16.
18. By reason of s. 18 of the Gaming Act, 1845.
19.
Bexweil
-v-
Christie
(1776) 1 Cowp 395. Cf.
Thomas Cheshire &
Co.
-v-
Vaughan Bros.
[1920] 3 KB 240.
20.
Lilley
-v-
Doubleday
(1881) 7 QBD 510;
Smith
-v-
Lascelles
(1788) 2 Term Rep 187;
Cattin
-v-
Belt
(1815) 4 Camp 183;
Barber
-v-
Taylor
(1839) 5 M & W 527;
Dufresne
-v-
Hutchinson
(1810) 3 Taunt 117.
21. Cf.
Stokes & Quirke Ltd.
-v-
Clohessy
[1951] IR 84 and
Farmer
-v- Casey (1898) 32 ILTR 144.
22.
Cunliffe-Owen
-v-
Teather and Greenwood
(1967] 1 W.L.R.
1421.
23. This discretion must be exercised in good faith and in the
interests of the principal. Cf.
Wilde
-v-
Watson
(1878) 1 LR Ir
402. Cf.
Carney
-v-
Fair(
1920) 54 ILTR 61.
24.
See Murphy, Buckley d Keogh
-v-
Pyeflr.) Ltd.
[1971] IR 57 and
Catlin
-v-
Bell
(1815)4 Camp 183.
25.
Bertram, Armstrong & Co.
-v-
Godfray
(1830) I Knapp. 381;
Fray
-v-
Voutes
(1859) 1 E & E 839; and
Chown
-v-
Parrott
(1863) 14 CBNS 74. It is important to note that an agent is not
liable to the principal if having properly followed the instruc-
tions, the consequences differ from those envisaged by the
principal. Cf.
Overend and Gurney Co.
-v-
Gibb
(1872) LR 5 HL
480.
26. (1859) 1 E . &E. 839.
27. (1830) 1 Knapp. 381.
28. Cf.
Overend <£ Gurney Co.
-v-
Gibb
(1872) LR 5 HL 480;
The
Hermione(
1859) 1 E. & E. 839.
29. Cf.
Ireland
-v-
Livingston
(1875) LR 5 HL 395;
Weigall
-v-
Runciman
(1916) 85 L.J.K.B. 1187;
Comber
-v-
Anderson
(1808)
1 Camp 523;
Moore
-v-
Mourgue
(1776) 2 Cowp 479; and
Gould
-v-
South Eastern and Chatham Rly Co.
[ 1920] 2 K B 186.
30.
Russell
-v-
Hankey
(1794) 6 Term Rep. 12;
World
Transport
Agency Ltd.
-v-
Royte (England) Ltd.
(1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 381;
Farrer
-v-
Lacy, Hartland & Co.
(1885) 31 ChD 42; and
Solomon
-v-
Barker
(1862) 2 F & F 726.
31. (1863) 14 C.B.N.S. 74 Cf.
Laganus Nitrate Co.
-v-
Lajunas
Syndicate
[ 1899] 2 Ch 392.
32.
Toppin
-v-
Healey
(1863) 11 W. R. 466.
33.
Lilley
-v-
Doubleday
(1881) 7 Q.B.D. 510.
34.
Bexwell
-v-
Christie,
(1776) 1 Cowp. 395.
35.
Cohen
-v-
Kittell
(1889) 22 Q.B.D. 680;
Cheshire (Thomas) &
Co.
-v-
Vaughan Bros. & Co.
[1920] 3 K.B. 240;
Donovan
-v-
Invicta Airways Ltd.
[1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 486; and
A.R.
Dennis & Co. Ltd.,
-v-
Campbell
[1978] Q.B. 365.
36.
Cf.
Wedderburn (1957) 20 M.L.R. 105, at 111-118.
37. See the text accompanying footnotes 19-36.
38. See
Overend, Gurney & Co.
-v-
Gibb
(1872) LR 5 HL
480.
39.
Quere
the position of barristers acting as advocates:
Rondal
-v-
Worsley
[1969] 1 A.C. 191;
Saif Ali
-v-
Sydney Mitchell & Co.
[1980]A.C. 198.
40.
Cf.
Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980.
41
. Hedley Byrne & Co. -v- Heller & Partners
[ 1964] A. C. 465.
42. (1864)3 H. &C. 337 at p.342.
43.
Cf. Beat
-v-
South Devon Rly. Co., ibid,
at fn.42;
Lanphier
-v-
Phipos
(1838) 8 C & P. 475;
Lee
-v-
Walker,
(1872) L.R. 7 C.P.
121;
Simmons
-v-
Pennington & Son
[1955] 1 W.L.R. 183; and
McNealy
-v-
Pennine Insurance Co. Ltd.
(1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep.
18.
44.
Keppel
-v-
Wheeler
[1927] 1 K.B. 577.
45.
Chitty on Contracts, op.cit.
fn.l, para. 2298, footnote omitted.
Cf.
Wilson
-v-
Brett,
(1843) 11 M. & W. 113;
Giblin
-v-
McMullen,
(1868) L.R. 2 P.C. 317, p.336.
46. Cf. Powell,
The Law of Agency
(2nd ed. 1961), p.304. Cf.
Houghland
-v-
R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd.
[1962] 1 Q.B.
694, 698;
Avery
-v-
Saiie(\912)
25 D.L.R. (3d) 495.
47. Remember the reward may be nominal!
48.
Dyas
-v-
Stafford
(1881) 7 LR Ir 590;
McCann
-v-
Pow
[1974] 1
W.L.R. 1643;
Cattin
-v- Be// (1815) 4 Camp 183;
Cook-v-
Ward
(1877) 2 CPD 255;
Henderson
-v-
Barnewall
(1827) 1 Y & J 387.
49. Cf. Lowe,
op. cit.
fn. 1, p. 16.
50. As was said by Buckley J. in
Adam & Co. Ltd.
-v-
Europa Poster
Services Ltd.
[1968] 1 All E.R. 826, 832: "The relation of an
agent to his principal is normally at least one which is of a
confidential character and the application of the maxim
'delagatus non potest delegare
' to such relationship is founded
on the confidential nature of the relationship. Where the principal
reposes no personal confidence in the agent the maxim has no
application, but where the principal does place confidence in the
agent, that in respect of which the principal does so must be done
by the agent personally unless either expressly or inferentially he
is authorised to employ a sub-agent or to delegate the function
to another."
51. Cf.
De Bussche -v- Alt (\%7&)
8 Ch.D. 286.
52.
Sheridan
-v-
Higgins
[1971] I.R. 291;
Quebec & Richmond Ry.
Co.
-v-
Quinn
(1858) 12 Moo.P.C.C. 232;
De Bussche
-v-
Alt
(1878) 8 Ch.D. 286, Thesiger L.J., at p.311.
53. Re
Newen
[1903] 1 Ch. 812. Cf. Chitty on Contracts (
op.cit.
fn.l), para. 2229, fn.79.'
54. Buckley L.J. in
Adam & Co. Ltd.
-v-
Europa Poster Services
Ltd.
(1968] 1 All E.R. 826, 832; see also fn.50,
ibid.
55.
Ibid.
56. Murdoch,
(op. cit.
fn. 1), p.54.
57.
Sheridan
-v-
Higgins
[1971] IR 291; and
Keay
-v-
Fenwick
(1876)
1 C.P.D. 745. Cf.
Dyas-v- Stafford
(1881)7 LR Ir 590.
58. De Bussche
-v-
AH
(1878) Ch.D. 286,
per
Theisiger L.J. at
pp.310-11.
Michael Reilly
B.E. M.I.E.I. Tti V
CONSULTANT CIVIL ENGINEER
SPECIALIST
IN
Litigations
Property
Fire and
Reports
Surveys.
Structural Reports
18 PARNELL ST.,
Telex.
80278
CLONMEL.
Tel.
052-24360
302