Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/370

 — Agency.

148 Part

undertakes to produce a specified result, employing his own means An agent, though bound to exercise his to produce that result (c). Eelation of authority in accordance with all lawful instructions which may be Agency. given to him from time to time by his principal, is not subject in I.

The

its

Existence of

agency depends on true nature of

agreement.

exercise to the direct control or supervision of the principal {d).

In order to ascertain whether the relation of agency exists, the true nature of the agreement between the alleged principal and agent will be regarded, and if it be found that such agreement in substance contemplates the alleged agent acting on his own behalf, and not on behalf of a principal, then, though the alleged agent may be described as an agent in the agreement, the relation of agency will not have arisen (e) An agent is employed for the purpose of placing the principal in contractual or other relations with a third party, and it is therefore essential to the relation of agency that a third party should be in existence or contemplation (/). The essence of the agent's position is that he shall be but a conduit pipe connecting two other parties. Thus an agent for sale or purchase is debarred from being himself If either buyer or seller without full disclosure to the principal. a person who holds himself out to be an agent is in fact seeking to sell his own property or buy that of his principal, he violates .

Existence of third party essential.

the

first

condition of his

Part

II.

employment

— Competency

rule.

of Parties.

Principals.

Sect. 1. General

(g).

328. It may be stated as a general proposition that whatever a person has power to do himself he may do by means of an agent

(h).

Beedie v. London and North (c) Quarman v. Burnett (1840), 6 M. & W. 499; Western Bail. Co. (1849), 4 Exch. 244 Hughes v. Perdval (1883), 8 App. Gas. 443 Dalton V. Angus (1881), 6 App. Gas. 740 JolUffe v. Woodhouse (1894), 10 T. L. E. 553 Lemaitre y. Davis {18S1), 19 Gh. D. 281; Black v. Christchurch Finance Co., [1894] A. G. 48; Holliday v. National Telephone Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 392; Hall V. Lees, [1904] 2 K. B. 602. {d) Wolff V. Horncastle (1798), 1 Bos. & P. 316; Barnett v. South London Tramways Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 815. Bennett v. Smith (1852), (e) Lx parte White, Be Nevill (1871), 6 Gh. App. 397 16 Jur. 421 De Bussche v. Alt (1878), 8 Gh. D. 286. Gonversely an agent may remain an agent while purporting to act- as principal. (/) Ex parte Dyster, Be Moline (1816), 2 Eose, 349; Wilson v. Short (1847), 6 Hare, 366. De Bussche v. Alt, supra ; {g) BoUnson v. Mollett (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 802 Ex parte Dyster, Be Moline, supra. (h) Be Whitley Partners, Ltd. (1886), 32 Gh. D. 337 (memorandum of association Compagnie Generale Transof a company may be subscribed by an agent) atlantique v. Thomas Law & Co.,  La Bourgogne, [1899] A. G. 431; Tharsis Sulphur and Copper Co. v. La Societe des Metaux (1889), 58 L. J. (q. B.) 435 (a foreign corporation may appoint agent to accept service of writ) Montgomery, Jones & Co. V. Liehenthal & Co., [1898] 1 Q. B. 487; FurnivallY. Hudson, [1893] B. v. Lnhabitants 1 Gh. 335 (an agent maybe appointed to execute a bill of sale) of Longnor (1833), 1 N. & M. 576 Foreman y. Great Western Bail. Co. (1878), 38 L. T. 851 (a principal who can read may appoint an agent who cannot read to sign





















,