Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/423

 —

—

.

Kelations between Principal and Third Persons.

Part IX.

Part IX.

— Relations

201

between Principal and

Third Persons. Sect.

l.—In

Sect.

General.

1.

General.

Sub-Sect. 1.—Extent of PrincipaVs Liahility.

427. Where a principal gives an agent express authority to do a particular act {t) or class of acts (a) on his behalf, the principal is bound, as regards third persons, by every act done by the agent which is so expressly authorised, or which is necessary for the proper execution of the express authority (b) even though the existence of

^cts within authority

,

such express authority

is

unknown

to the third person

(c).

428. Where a principal gives an agent general authority to conduct any business on his behalf, he is bound, as regards third persons, by every act done by the agent which is incidental to the ordinary course of such business (d), or which falls within the apparent scope of the agent's authority

General authority,

(e).

429. Where a person has by words or conduct held out

(/)

another person, or enabled another person to hold himself out [g), as having authority to act on his behalf, he is bound, as regards third parties, by the acts of such other person to the same extent as he would have been bound if such other person had in fact had the authority which he was held out as having.

Authority by estoppel.

430. A principal is not exempt from liability, where he would Fraudulent °^ otherwise be bound by an act done by his agent, by reason of ^^^^1^ the fact that the agent in doing it was acting in fraud of the immaterial, principal (//), or otherwise to his detriment (i) Sub-Sect.

431.

Where

2.

Limitation of FrincipaFs Liahility.

a principal, in conferring authority upon his agent to

act on his behalf, imposes conditions {k) or limitations (t)

(Z)

Parhes v. Prescott (1869), L. E. 4 Exch. 169; Montague

22 L. J.

(c. P.)

v.

Perkins (1853),

187.

(a) Hamhro y Burnand, [1904] 2 K. B. 10; Montaignac v. Bhitta (1890), 15 App. Cas. 357. (&) Jacols V. Morris, [1902] 1 Ch. 816. (c) Hambro v. Burnand, supra. (d) Edmunds v. Bushell (1865), L. E. 1 Q. B. 97 ; Watteau v. Fenwick, [1893] 1 Q. B. 346 ; Haivken v. Bourne (1841), 8 M. & W. 703. (e) Howard Y. Sheward (1866), L. E. 2 0. P. 148; Howard y. Tucker (1831), 1 B. & Ad. 712; Townsend y. Lnglis (1816), Holt (isr. P.), 278; Wi7ig v. Harvey (1854), 5 Ue d. M. & G. 265. (/) Llazard y. Treadwell (1722), 1 Str. 506; Summers y. Solomon (1857), 26 L. J. (q. B.) 301 Jetley y. Hill (1884), 1 Cab. & El. 239 Filmer y. L^/nn (1835), 4 Nev. & M. (k. b.) 559 Mahony y. Fast Llolyford Mining Go. (1875), L. E. 7 H. L. 869; Barrett y. Deere (1828), Mood. & M. 200. [g] Fx parte Llarrison, Be Bentley & Go. (1893), 69 L. T. 204; Levita's Gase London Freehold and Leasehold Property Go. y. Baron (1870), 5 Ch. App. 489 Suffield, [1897] 2 Ch. 608. (/i) Hamhro v. Burnand, supra; Montague v. Perkins, supra; Summers v. Solomon, swpra* (i) Haivken y. Bourne, supra; Hoiuard v. Sheivard, supra; Wing y. Harvey, supra,







[k) (/)

Jordan

y.

Norton (1838), 4

M. & W.

Effect of

on its exercise, a™horUy!

155.

Jacobs y. Morris, supra; Balfour y.Frnest (1859), 5 C. B. (n.

s.)

601.