The Gazette 1986

sepTemBER

1986

GAZETTE

Agency Ltd. -v- Royte (England) Ltd. (1957] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 381; Farrer -v- Lacy, Hartland & Co. (1885) 31 ChD 42; and Solomon -v- Barker (1862) 2 F & F 726. 31. (1863) 14 C.B.N.S. 74 Cf. Laganus Nitrate Co. -v- Lajunas Syndicate [ 1899] 2 Ch 392.

(e) delegation by necessity If there are sufficient grounds for an agency of necessity, then there may also be sufficient grounds for a delegation of authority. 58 (continued in next issue) Footnotes 1. On the duties of an agent see generally, Fridman's Law of Agency, (5th ed., 1983); Chitty on Contracts, (25th ed., 1983), paras. 2295-2304; Borrie, Commercial Law, (5th ed., 1980), chap. I; Lowe, Commercial Law, (6th ed., 1983), chap.l; and Murdoch, The Law of Estate Agency & Auctions, (2nd ed., 1984), pp. 45-66. On agency in company law see: Keane, Company Law in the Republic of Ireland (1985), paras. 23.03 and 27.27; Ussher, Company Law in Ireland, (1986), pp. 143-159; and Forde, Company Law in Ireland (1985), paras. 13.5-13.47. 2. Cf. Makepeace -v- Rogers (1865) 4 De GJ Sm 649; Padwick -v- Stanley (1852) 9 Hare 627. Cf. Auctioneers and House Agents Act, 1947, 1967 and 1973. See also Wylie, Irish Conveyancing Low (1978), para. 3.064 et seq. 3. For the position in English law see Murdoch ( op.cit., fn.l), passim. 4. On the duty to act see Murdoch (op.cit., fn.l), pp.45-47. 5. Turpin -v- Bilton (1845) 5 Man. & G. 455. Cf. North -v- Dinan [1931] IR 468 and Judd -v- Doyle's Motors Ltd. (1938) 72 ILTR 100. 6. Turpin -v- Bilton ibid., fn.5. Cf. Farmer -v- Casey (1898) 32 ILTR 144. 7. Ibid., fn.5. 8. Smith -v- Lascetles (1788) 2 Term Rep. 187. 9. Cf. Coggs -v- Bernard (1703) 2 Ld. Raym. 909; and Elsee -v- Gatward (1793) 5 Term Rep. 143; Balfe -v- West (1853) 13 C.B. 466. 10. Murdoch, op.cit., fn. 3, p.46. 11. Ibid., p.46. 12. Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. -v- Heller & Partners Ltd. [1964] A.C. 465. 13. Murdoch, ( op.cit. fn.5); Cf. Argy Trading Development Co. Ltd. -v- LapidDevelopments Ltd. [1977] 3 All E.R. 785. See also Cherry -v- Allied Insurance Brokers [1978] I Lloyd's Rep. 274. 14. (1793) 1 Esp. 74. 15. Webster -v- De Tastet (1797) 7 Term Rep. 157. 16. Cohen -v- Kitted (1889) 22 QBD 680. Cf. Fraser -v- BN Furman (Productions) Ltd. [1967] 1 W.L.R. 898. 17. Ibid., fn. 16. 18. By reason of s. 18 of the Gaming Act, 1845. 19. Bexweil -v- Christie (1776) 1 Cowp 395. Cf. Thomas Cheshire & Co. -v- Vaughan Bros. [1920] 3 KB 240. 20. Lilley -v- Doubleday (1881) 7 QBD 510; Smith -v- Lascelles (1788) 2 Term Rep 187; Cattin -v- Belt (1815) 4 Camp 183; Barber -v- Taylor (1839) 5 M & W 527; Dufresne -v- Hutchinson (1810) 3 Taunt 117. 21. Cf. Stokes & Quirke Ltd. -v- Clohessy [1951] IR 84 and Farmer -v- Casey (1898) 32 ILTR 144. 22. Cunliffe-Owen -v- Teather and Greenwood (1967] 1 W.L.R. 1421. 23. This discretion must be exercised in good faith and in the interests of the principal. Cf. Wilde -v- Watson (1878) 1 LR Ir 402. Cf. Carney -v- Fair( 1920) 54 ILTR 61. 24. See Murphy, Buckley d Keogh -v- Pyeflr.) Ltd. [1971] IR 57 and Catlin -v- Bell (1815)4 Camp 183. 25. Bertram, Armstrong & Co. -v- Godfray (1830) I Knapp. 381; Fray -v- Voutes (1859) 1 E & E 839; and Chown -v- Parrott (1863) 14 CBNS 74. It is important to note that an agent is not liable to the principal if having properly followed the instruc- tions, the consequences differ from those envisaged by the principal. Cf. Overend and Gurney Co. -v- Gibb (1872) LR 5 HL 480. 26. (1859) 1 E . &E. 839. 27. (1830) 1 Knapp. 381. 28. Cf. Overend <£ Gurney Co. -v- Gibb (1872) LR 5 HL 480; The Hermione( 1859) 1 E. & E. 839. 29. Cf. Ireland -v- Livingston (1875) LR 5 HL 395; Weigall -v- Runciman (1916) 85 L.J.K.B. 1187; Comber -v- Anderson (1808) 1 Camp 523; Moore -v- Mourgue (1776) 2 Cowp 479; and Gould -v- South Eastern and Chatham Rly Co. [ 1920] 2 K B 186. 30. Russell -v- Hankey (1794) 6 Term Rep. 12; World Transport

32. Toppin -v- Healey (1863) 11 W. R. 466. 33. Lilley -v- Doubleday (1881) 7 Q.B.D. 510. 34. Bexwell -v- Christie, (1776) 1 Cowp. 395.

35. Cohen -v- Kittell (1889) 22 Q.B.D. 680; Cheshire (Thomas) & Co. -v- Vaughan Bros. & Co. [1920] 3 K.B. 240; Donovan -v- Invicta Airways Ltd. [1970] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 486; and A.R. Dennis & Co. Ltd., -v- Campbell [1978] Q.B. 365. 36. Cf. Wedderburn (1957) 20 M.L.R. 105, at 111-118. 37. See the text accompanying footnotes 19-36. 38. See Overend, Gurney & Co. -v- Gibb (1872) LR 5 HL 480. 39. Quere the position of barristers acting as advocates: Rondal -v- Worsley [1969] 1 A.C. 191; Saif Ali -v- Sydney Mitchell & Co. [1980]A.C. 198. 40. Cf. Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act, 1980. 41 . Hedley Byrne & Co. -v- Heller & Partners [ 1964] A. C. 465. 42. (1864)3 H. &C. 337 at p.342. 43. Cf. Beat -v- South Devon Rly. Co., ibid, at fn.42; Lanphier -v- Phipos (1838) 8 C & P. 475; Lee -v- Walker, (1872) L.R. 7 C.P. 121; Simmons -v- Pennington & Son [1955] 1 W.L.R. 183; and McNealy -v- Pennine Insurance Co. Ltd. (1978] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 18. 44. Keppel -v- Wheeler [1927] 1 K.B. 577. 45. Chitty on Contracts, op.cit. fn.l, para. 2298, footnote omitted. Cf. Wilson -v- Brett, (1843) 11 M. & W. 113; Giblin -v- McMullen, (1868) L.R. 2 P.C. 317, p.336. 46. Cf. Powell, The Law of Agency (2nd ed. 1961), p.304. Cf. Houghland -v- R.R. Low (Luxury Coaches) Ltd. [1962] 1 Q.B. 694, 698; Avery -v- Saiie(\912) 25 D.L.R. (3d) 495. 47. Remember the reward may be nominal! 48. Dyas -v- Stafford (1881) 7 LR Ir 590; McCann -v- Pow [1974] 1 W.L.R. 1643; Cattin -v- Be// (1815) 4 Camp 183; Cook-v- Ward (1877) 2 CPD 255; Henderson -v- Barnewall (1827) 1 Y & J 387. 49. Cf. Lowe, op. cit. fn. 1, p. 16. 50. As was said by Buckley J. in Adam & Co. Ltd. -v- Europa Poster Services Ltd. [1968] 1 All E.R. 826, 832: "The relation of an agent to his principal is normally at least one which is of a confidential character and the application of the maxim 'delagatus non potest delegare ' to such relationship is founded on the confidential nature of the relationship. Where the principal reposes no personal confidence in the agent the maxim has no application, but where the principal does place confidence in the agent, that in respect of which the principal does so must be done by the agent personally unless either expressly or inferentially he is authorised to employ a sub-agent or to delegate the function to another." 51. Cf. De Bussche -v- Alt (\%7&) 8 Ch.D. 286. 52. Sheridan -v- Higgins [1971] I.R. 291; Quebec & Richmond Ry. Co. -v- Quinn (1858) 12 Moo.P.C.C. 232; De Bussche -v- Alt (1878) 8 Ch.D. 286, Thesiger L.J., at p.311. 53. Re Newen [1903] 1 Ch. 812. Cf. Chitty on Contracts ( op.cit. fn.l), para. 2229, fn.79.' 54. Buckley L.J. in Adam & Co. Ltd. -v- Europa Poster Services Ltd. (1968] 1 All E.R. 826, 832; see also fn.50, ibid. 55. Ibid. 56. Murdoch, (op. cit. fn. 1), p.54. 57. Sheridan -v- Higgins [1971] IR 291; and Keay -v- Fenwick (1876) 1 C.P.D. 745. Cf. Dyas-v- Stafford (1881)7 LR Ir 590. 58. De Bussche -v- AH (1878) Ch.D. 286, per Theisiger L.J. at pp.310-11. Michael Reilly B.E. M.I.E.I. Tti V CONSULTANT CIVIL ENGINEER

SPECIALIST

IN

Litigations

Property Surveys.

Fire and

Reports

Structural Reports

18 PARNELL ST.,

Telex.

80278

CLONMEL.

Tel.

052-24360

302