Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/429

 — Part IX.

Kelations between Principal and Third Persons.

207

Sect. 3. against (0 the principal whether or not his name or existence was Contracts disclosed to the other contracting -piivty at the time when such made by contract was made (a). Agent, Where, however, the contract is made without such authority, it cannot be enforced by the principal, unless it is a contract made But not when ostensibly on behalf of a principal and capable of being ratified by contract unauthorised, the principal in question (/)), or unless it is a contract relating to the Nor can it be enforced against the principal, principal's goods (c). unless he is estopped from denying the existence of the agent's authority ((/).

440. Where the enforcement of the contract depends upon the Where signed memorandum existence of a signed memorandum (e), a memorandum signed by sufficient that the agent is the agent has authority, (/), provided express or implied, to sign it (r/). 441. Where the agent is a professional agent, and the contract made by him on his principal's behalf is made in the ordinary course of his business as such agent, all reasonable usages, rules, and regulations in force in such business are deemed to be incorporated with the contract (/i), and the contract can only be enforced by (i) or against (A:) the principal in accordance therewith. The usages, rules, or regulations, however, must not be inconsistent with the express terms of the contract (/). (0 Including- the see, further, title

Crown [Thomas

v.

The Quem (1874), L. E. 10 Q. B. 31



and

Constitutional Law).

(rt) IShinner v. Stocks (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 437 Hornby Lacy (1817), 6 M. ^ S. 166; Sadler Y. Leigh (1815), 4 Camp. 195; Luke of Norfolk y. Worthy (1808), 1 Camp. 337 Petty v. Anderson (1825), 3 Bing. 170; BatemanY. Phillips (1812), 15 East, 272 Biggins v. Senior (1841), 8 M. & W. 834. (h) Keighley Maxsted & Co. v. Larant, [1901] A. C. 240 /feker v. Baxter (1866), L. E. 2 C. P. 174; and see further pp. 173 et seq., ante. (c) Bamazotti v. Bowring (1859), 7 C. B. (n. s.) 851 factors Act, 1889 (52 & 53 Vict. c. 45), s. 12 (2), (3). See further p. 210, post. (d) See p. 201, ajde. (e) As under the Statute of Frauds (29 Car. 2, c. 3) Bosenhavm v. Belson, [1900] 2 Ch. 267 the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Yict. c. 89), s.6; Be Whitley Partners, Ltd. (1886), 32 Ch. D. 337 the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 71), s. 4 Lurrell v. Lvaiis (1862), 1 H. & C. 174. See further pp. 160 et seq.,

















ante.

if) Except where the signature of the party himself is essential, as in representations as to credit under Lord Tenterden's Act, 1829 (9 Geo. 4, c. 14), s. 6 WilUaias v. Mason (1873), 28 L. T. 232). See p. 214, post. But the signature ( of the agent is sufficient to revive a statute-barred debt under Lord Tenterden's Act, s. 1, and the Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Yict. c. 97), s. 13 [Palethorp v. Furnish (1783), 2 Esp. 511, n.). {g) Sims v. Landray, [1894] 2 Ch. 318, compare Bell v. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663 and see further p. 157, ante. Eor brokers' bought and sold notes, see title Sale

oi'

Goods.

(A) Graves v. Legg (1857), 2 H. & N. 210; Stray v. Bnssell (1859), 1 E. & E. 888; London Founders' Association y. Clarke (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 576; and see in particular for the usages of the Stock Exchange, title Stock Exchange.

Compare

also p. 182, ante. Coles Y. Bristoiue (1868), 4 Ch.

App. 3 Haiukins v. Malthy (1869), 4 Ch. App. Beckhuson and Gihhs v. Hamblet, [1901] 2 K. B. 73. {k) Bowring v. Shepherd (1871), L. E. 6 Q. B. 309. (/) Cruse Y. Paine (1869), 4 Ch. App. 441 and contrast Grissell v. Bristoiue (1868), L. E. 4 C. P. 36. {i)

200







Usages of profissions etc.