Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/407

 Part VII T.

—Eelations

Sub-Sect. 2.— As

between Principal and Agent. Care, Skill

to

and

Diligence.

185 Sect.

2.

397. Every agent {g) is responsible to his principal for any loss 5;^^*? occasioned by his want of proper care, skill, or diligence, in the against carrying out of his undertaking {h), even though the principal has Agent No absolute standard can be laid down himself been negligent ii). as to what constitutes proper care, skill, or diligence, and each Ordinary But care^ and skill, particular case must be judged by its own circumstances {h). the relation of principal and agent must be clearly established in respect of the matter complained of (/), before any responsibility '

arises

(/;0-

Where an agent

acts without

reward he

only bound to use such

is

as he has (n), except where he has represented himself as possessing skill, in which case the amount of skill requisite is such The as may reasonably be expected under the circumstances (o). care and diligence required are such as persons ordinarily use in skill

their

own

affairs

Gratuitous ^g^nt.

{])).

398. Where an agent

acts for reward, a higher standard is Agent tor The care, skill, or diligence required is not merely reward, exacted {q). that which he in fact possesses, but such as is reasonably necessary If he is an agent for the due performance of his undertaking (?•). following a particular trade or profession, and holding himself out to the world for employment as such, he represents himself as reasonably competent to carry out any business which he underHe must then takes in the course of such trade or profession (s). show such care and diligence as are exercised in the ordinary and proper course, and such skill as is usual and requisite, in the In considering the business for which he receives payment {t). question regard must be had to the nature of the business {a), and claim is for property intrusted to him, or for the proceeds or value of such property {North American Land and Timber Co. v. Watkins, [1904] 1 Oh. 242, affirmed [1904] 2 Ch. 233 Re Lands Allotment Co., [1894] 1 Ch. 616). Mulligan v. McDonagh {g) Except counsel, Fell v. Brown (1791), 1 Peake, 131 See (1860), 2 L. T. 136; and see Perring v. Rebutter (1842), 2 Mood. & E. 429.



title

Barristers.

Real v. South Devon Rail. Co. (1864), 3 H. & C, per Crompton J., at p. 341. Becker v. Medd (1897), 13 T. L. E. 313. [k) The question is one for the jury Beauchamp v. Rowley (1831), 1 Mood. & E. 38 Doorman v. Jenkins (1834), 2 A. & E. 256, (/) Chambers v. Goldthorpe, [1901] 1 K. B. 624. (w) McManusY.Fortescue, [1907] 2 KB. 1 Ze Lievre v. Gould, [1893] 1 Q. B.491. [n) Real y. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 342 Wilson v. Brett (1843), 11 M. & W. 113; Mofatt v. Bateman (1869), L. E. 3 P. C. 115. (o) Such representation may be express [Whitehead v. Greetham (1825), 2 Bing-. 464) or implied {Do7ialdson v. Haldane (1840), 7 01. & E. 762). Shiells v. Blackburne (p) Beul V. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 342 (1789), 1 Hy. Bl. 159; Doorman v. Jenkins, supra ; Giblin v. McMullen (1868), L. E. 2 P. 0. 317. [q) Grill V. General Iron Screw Collier Co. (1866), L. E. 1 0. P., j^er Smith, J., (K) (/)













at p. 614.

Bealy. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 341. v. Cornelius (1858), 5 0. B. (n. s.) 236; Jenkins v. Betham (1855), 15 C. B. 168. (<) Beal V. South Devon Rail. Co., supra, at p. 342 Smith v. Barton (1866), 15 L. T. 294 Lee v. Walker (1872), L. E. 7 0. P. 121 Solomon v. Barker (1862), 2 ^ (r) [s]

Harmer







E.

&F.

(a)

726.

Heys

v.

Tindall (1861),

1

B.

&

S. 296.