Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/390

 — Agency.

168 Sect.

3.

Implied Authority. Principal

unaware

of

custom.

his express authority permits him to act, subject to the condition that such customs and usages must not be unreasonable, nor change the essential nature of the contract of

in respect of which (x)

,

agency (y). Provided the custom or usage is reasonable, the agent's implied authority to act in accordance therewith is not affected by the fact that the principal may have been unaware of its existence (a) and the agent is entitled to indemnity from his principal against losses caused by acting in accordance therewith {b). What is a reasonable custom or usage is a question of law (c). It must be a generally recognised custom or usage, and not merely a course of business between the agent and the third party {d). A custom to receive payment by cheque is reasonable (e), but a custom to receive payment by setting off a debt due from the agent

Eeasonableness of

custom.

is not (/). act in accordance with

personally

To

an unreasonable custom or usage is not within the scope of an agent's implied authority unless the principal had notice of the custom or usage and agreed to be bound by it ig) and the burden of proving that the principal had notice of it lies on the person alleging the existence of the authority (h).

Sect. 4. Execution of deed.

Exercise oj Authority,

365. An agent acting under a power of attorney should, as a general rule, act in the name of the principal. If he is authorised to sue on the principal's behalf, the action should be brought in the principal's name. A deed executed in pursuance of such a power is properly executed in the name of the principal or with words to

(x) (y)

H.

&

Lienard v. Dresslar (1862), 3 F. & F. 212. Robinson v. Mollett (1874), L. E. 7 H. L. 802



Bostock v. Jardine (1865), 3

C. 700.

and Horton v. Oodfreij, [1901] 2 K. B, 726 and see Beckhimni Cropper v. Cook (1868), L. E. v. HamUet, [1901] 2 K. B. 73 3 C. P. 194; Satton v. Tatham (1839), 10 A. & E. 27; and see title Stock EXCHAK^GE. (h) Barker v. Edwards (1887), 57 L. J. (q. b.) 147; Russell y. Hankey (1794), (a)

Scott



and GiUs

6

Term Eep. (c)



12 (custom of bankers).

Coles V. Bristowe (1868), 4 Ch.

Ex

App.

3.

Howell, Re Williams (1865), 12 L. T. 785. {e) Bridges v. Garrett (1870),, L. E. 5 C. P. 451; Walker v. Barker (1900), 16 T. L. E. 393. (/) Todd V. Reid (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 210 Stueeting v. Fearce (1859), 7 C. B. (N. s.) 449; Bartlett v. Pentland (1830), 10 B. & C. 760; Scott v. Irving (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 605 compare Stewart v. Aherdein (1838), 4 M. & W. 211 Blackburn v. Mason (1893), 68 L. T. 510. For the authority of a stockbroker, and customs which have been held reasonable and unreasonable, see title Stock (ri)

]>arte







Exchange. (y) Ulackburn Y. Mason, supra; Hamilton v. Young (1881), L. E. 7 Ir. 289 Stewart v. Aberdein, supra; Sweeting v. Pearce, supjra ; Bartlett v. Pentland, supra; Perry v. Barnetf (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 388; Robinson v. Mollett, supra (in which the opinions of the judges were taken); Bostock v. Jardine, supra; Scott V. Irving^ supra, at p. 612. {h) Matveieff For the authority Co. v. Crossfield (1903), 51 W. E. 365. implied by reason of custom and usages in the case of other special classes of agent, see titles AucTio^^ and Auctioneers, Bankers and Banking, Insurance. Shipping and Navigation, and Solicitors.