Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/413

 — — Part

VIII.

Relations between Principal and Agent.

something from the third party (n) the agent is entitled to receive and retain such commissions as are usual and customary, and the principal cannot object merely on the ground that he was unaware ,

of the actual

amount

thereof.

discovering the receipt of a bribe the principal may instantly dismiss the agent (o), and, if he has already been dismissed, may justify the dismissal on that ground, even though the bribery was not discovered till after the dismissal (p). The agent forfeits any commission in respect of the transaction (q) and becomes liable (r) to his principal for the amount of the bribe, if in money (s), or for the value of the property so received by him(^), such value being measured by the highest value which the property might have Interest also is payable at the fetched whilst in his possession (a). rate of 5 per cent, per annum from the date when the bribe was In addition, the agent is liable, jointly and severally received (b). with the briber, for any loss actually sustained by the principal in consequence of any breach of duty on the agent's part (c) and both he and the briber may be dealt with criminally {d).

191 ^^^t.

2.

Rights of Pnncipal

^amst "

On

EfEect of [^^^^g^^^^

^

ageift.



Sub-Sect.

6.

Measure of Damages for Breach of Duty.

407. Where an agent is sued by his principal for breach of duty. Measure of the measure of damages is the full amount of the loss actually sus- damages for tained (e), and no more (/), provided that such loss is the natural ^uty^by^^ and probable consequence (g) of the breach of duty, or such as was agent. {n)

Baring

v.

Stanton (1876), 3 Ch. D. 502



Lord Norreys

v.

Hodgson (1897),

13 T. L. E. 421. (o) See Swale Y. Ipswich Tannery (1906), 11 Com. Gas. 88, jser Kennedy, J., at pp. 95, 98. ip) Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell {l^S^), 39 Ch. D. 339; Siuale V. Ipswich Tannery Co., supra. (q) AndrewsY. Ramsay dt Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 635 ; Frice y. Metropolitan House Investment and Agency Co., Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. E. 630 but not in respect of other

transactions with which the receipt of the bribe was unconnected {Hippisley v. K7iee, [1905] 1 B. 1 Nitedals Taendstikfabriky. Br uster ([906), 75 L. J. (CH.) 798). (r) The relation, however, is that of debtor and creditor, and not of trustee and cestui que trust [Lister & Co. v. Stuhhs (1890), 45 Ch. D. 1; Fowell v. Evan Jones (fc Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 11). (s) Mayor etc. of Salford v. Lever, [1891] 1 Q. B. 168 Hay's Case (1875), 10 Ch. App. 593. {t) McKay's Case {IS7 5), 2 Ch. D. 1; Nantyglo a^id Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Grave (1878), 12 Ch. D. 738; Re Caerphilly Colliery Co.^ Fearson's Case (1877), 5

K





Ch. D. 336). (a)

Ibid.

Boston Deep Sea Fishing and Ice Co. v. Ansell, supra. Interest at the rate of 4 per cent, was given in Nantyglo and Blaina Ironworks Co. v. Grave, supra. (c) Mayor etc. of Salford v. Lever, supra [d.) For conspiracy to defraud [R. v. Barber (1887), 3 T. L. E. 491), or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906 (6 Edw. 7, c. 34), and, if a servant of a public body, under the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Yict. c. 69). See title Criminal Law akd Procedtjee. (e) Smithy. Frice (1862), 2 F. & F. 748 Maydew y. Forrester (1814), 5 Taunt. 615; Neilson y. James (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 546. Unless the loss is not a legal loss(TFeter v. De Tastet{]191), 7 Term Eep. 157; Cohen y. Kittell {ISS9), 22 Q. B. D. 680). If there has been no actual loss, the principal is entitled to nominal damages {Van Wart y. Woolley (1830), Mood. & M. 520). (/) Waddell y. Blockey (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 678; Cassaboglou y. Oibb (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 797 and see Michael y. Hart & Co., [1902] 1 K. B. 482. (b)
 * Morgan v. Elford{l^l&), 4 Ch. D. 352.





{g)

Compare Mainwaring

Service Co., Johnston's

y.

Brandon

(1818), 2

Claim (1871), 6 Ch. App. 212.

Moo.

125, with

Re

United.