Maya Stork Case

An agency relationship is a fiduciary relationship that is created with a written contract or oral agreement.

cheque in the amount of $4500 instead of the full $6000. In this case, the agent (Kent) did not disclose the identity of the principal to the third party (Somerset Pet Shops Ltd.), so the agent alone in this case would be liable. The third party may look to the agent for damages. The agent, by the same rule of law, would be entitled to enforce the agreement against the third party if the third party should fail to perform the agreement in accordance with its terms.

Case 9 deals with a homeowner (the principle) who lists her property for sale and enters into an agreement with an agent to facilitate a sale with a third party. Over the course of the agency agreement a prospective buyer inspected the property but didn’t make an offer before the agency agreement expired. The legal issue that arises comes after the agency agreement expires. The prospective buyer later decided to put in an offer, which was accepted, but once discovering that the agreement between the principle and agent had expired brought legal action against the agent.

Similarly leaving furniture, or a large amount of vendor’s chattel have been held as breaches of a vendor’s obligation to give physical vacant possession of the property.

Facts: John Peck sold a piece of land to Robert Fletcher. Since the original sale from Peck was invalid, Peck committed a breach of contract.

Agent – a buyer (in this case a buyer in a foreign city that the factor has to manually locate)

A court will likely find Wayne Carter to be the legal owner of the Stanton farm in Colin County, in spite of having not recorded with the deed with the county, because George Pearson, the subsequent purchaser had a duty to inquire and such an inquiry would have yielded notice that Carter had deed to the farm. Under Texas law,

Plaintiff’s allegations must show that Maloney’s behavior was sufficient to prove he is liable. Maloney’s commissions for the sale of insurance policies are insufficient evidence that he acted

When Kallessi paid the supplier’s two invoices out of the five, even though Maya had the restrictions on her and the suppliers were unaware of them, the suppliers thought that Maya had the authority to place those orders. This kind of authority is known as ostensible authority which the agent is held out as having. This can be seen in the case International Sponge Importers V Watt and Sons 1911 SC (HL) 57, where International Sponge Importers were the principal and the salesman was the agent and Watt and Sons were the third party. Here, the salesman had no authority to receive payments except for crossed cheques made to the company (the principal). Watt and Sons bought sponges from the salesman and paid by cheques made to the salesman. The sponge company knew about this but had not objected. After the salesman ran away with money, International Sponge Importers tried to sue Watt and Sons for the money that had been paid to the salesman directly but Watt and Sons were deemed not liable to pay as the salesman was held out as having the authority to receive the payments directly. The International Sponge Importers V Watt and Sons case can be differed from the case of Watteau V Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 346. In this case, the manager was the agent and his employer was the principal and the suppliers were the third party. Even though the manager was prohibited from buying

Thousands of dollars have been spent advertising his products and it is only fair that I seek damages for what was directly lost through the breached contract. If the supplier stops doing business with me then it will take time and extreme emotional discomfort to take back my adverting promises. If emotional distress or damage to my reputation occurs, I will seek damages for losses suffered related to the breached contract. (Kippenhan, 2017, p. 144)

However during the process of contract creation there is express agency. This is direct authority that an agent has. In cases where an agent relationship has to be determined, there are two parties involved; the principal and agent. The agent acts on behalf of the principal an agent therefore has a legal power to bind the principal. A principal should be very careful when it comes to the type of authority they give to an agent ( The 'Lectric Law

Andy is likely to be successful in court. Although the only express terms were that Andy would pay $400 for use of the paddocks for his horse, there is a potential implied term that the paddocks would be reasonably equipped to service the horse, especially given both parties understood that the horse would require grass and water during the time it was living in the paddock. As in Costa Vraca v Berrigan Weed & Pest Control, Doug

Agency Conflicts: An agency relationship arises whenever someone, called a principal, hires someone else called an agent, to perform some service, and the principal delegated decisions making authority to the agent.

Agency issues arise when one party (principal) gives another party (agent) an authority to act on his behalf. In this context, the principal is the investor while the professional hedge fund

Although the agent is limited by actual authority, the principal is still bound by the acts of the agent where in the case of Waugh v H.B. Clifford & Sons Ltd [1982] 1 Ch 374, it was held that the client has to be bound by the compromise entered into by the solicitor even though the client did not want to compromise.