Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/406

 ;

Agency.

184 Sect.

2.

Rights of Principal against

Agent. Use of information etc. acquired in agency.

Contracts.

permissible in immaterial matters (m), or where the agent has received authority from his principal to delegate (n). is

395. It is the duty of an agent to employ the means of obtaining materials and information afforded him by his agency solely for the purposes of the agency (o), and not to use any materials or information so acquired, whether his agency has come to an end or not, in any manner inconsistent with good faith, as by divulging or by using them himself in unfair them to third parties competition with his principal (q). But he may use them for any purpose which is not a breach of good faith (?•). 396. An agent must not, in the absence of authority, purport to bind his principal by contract (s). Where he possesses authority so to do, he must contract in his principal's name and not in his own, If he purchases unless the terms of his employment permit it {t). property in his own name on behalf of his principal, and has the legal estate transferred to himself, he is a trustee for his principal in respect of the property (a). No agent, however, is under any personal Hability to his principal

upon any contracts made by him on the latter 's behalf (b), unless is made personally liable by usage (c), or unless he is acting as a

he

del credere agent {d). Principal's

remedy.

Upon an

agent's breach of duty the principal's remedy is, as a bring an action for damages (e), and the Statute of Limitations runs in the agent's favour from the date of the breach (/). rule,

to

Ex parte Sutton (1788), 2 Cox, Eq. 84 JBroivn v. Tomhs, [1891] 1 Q. B. 253. See pp. 169 et seq., ante. (o) Lamh v. Evans, [1893] 1 Ch. 218, per BowEN, L.J., at p. 230 Merryweather v. Moore, [1892] 2 Ch. 518, jper Kekewich, J., at p. 524 Louis v. Smel'Ue (1895), 73 L. T. 226. (p) Merryiueather v. Moore, supra; Lamb v. Evans, supra, where Bowen, L.J., disapproved of Reuter's Telegram Co. v. Byron (1874), 43 L. J. (CH.) 661 Taylor v. Blackloiv (1836), 3 Scott, 614; Davies v. Cloucih (1837), 8 Sim. 262. {q) RoUy. Green, [1895] 2 Q. B. 315; Yovatt v. Winyard (1820), 1 Jac. & W. 394. and see Aas v. (?•) Louis V. Smellie, supra, per LiNDLEY, L.J., at p. 228 Benham, [1891] 2 Ch. 244. (s) Compare Chadhurn v. Moore (1892), 61 L. J. (CH.) 674, with Rosenhaum v. Bdson, [1900] 2 Ch. 267 and see Ho,mer v. Sharp (1874), L. E. 19 Eq. 108. But the principal may, notwithstanding, be liable on such contracts to the third party. See pp. 201, 204, 207, ^>ost. (t) A factor has implied authority to contract in his own name a broker has Cropper v. not, in the absence of usage {Baring v. Corrie (1818), 2 B. & Aid. 137 Cook (1868), L. E. 3 C. P. 194). See also Conveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45 {m)



(n)













Yict.

c. 41), s. 46. (a) LeesY.NuttaU{l83'i),

2My.&K. 819;

hutsee James v. Smith, [1891]

1

Ch. 384.

Gill V. Shepherd (1902), 8 Com. Cas. 48. As to his liability to his principal as holder of a bill of exchange signed by the agent without qualification, see title (&)

Bills of Exchange etc. (c)

(d)

E.g.,

See

insurance brokers, see

title

iNSURAifCE.

p. 153, ante.

(e) For the measure of damages, see p. 191, post; and for the appropriate remedies in special cases, see pp. 185 193, post. if) Wood V. Jones (1889), 61 L. T. 551 Metropolitan Bank v. Heiron (1880), 5 Ex. D. 319. Even when he acted in a fiduciary capacity (Trustee Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Yict. c. 59), s. 8), unless he has been guilty of fraud, or unless the

—