Free Business & Corporate Law Essay Example 2022

Running head: COMPANY LAW
COMPANY LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

COMPANY LAW1
Issue
The primary issue in the given scenario is that what may be the legal position of Philip
under the given circumstances.
Rule
The ‘agency’ in relation to English law is considered to be an element of the commercial
law of the nation of the United Kingdom.
An agent is supposed to perform his actions within the range regarding authority that is
deliberated by the principal. When the agent performs the actions within such conferred
authority, then in such a situation the principal shall be bound in relation to the obligations,
which are created by the agent regarding third parties. It may be said that there exists two classes
in relation to authority that are acknowledged as per the law. One of the authority may be
considered to be the actual authority (either implied or expressed) and the other one is the
apparent authority.
The case of Ireland v Livingstone (1872) LR 5 HL 395 shall be significant in this regard1.
In this particular case, it had been stated that the express actual authority shall mean that an agent
has been specifically and expressly informed that the actions shall be performed by the agent on
behalf of the principal.
The case of Chan Yin Tee v. William Jacks and Co. (Malaya) Ltd [1964] MLJ 290 may
also be considered to be a significant case in this regard2. This case has forwarded a discussion in
relation to ‘implied authority’. In this case, it has been stated that responsibilities of an agent may
1 Ireland v Livingstone (1872) LR 5 HL 395.
2 Chan Yin Tee v. William Jacks and Co. (Malaya) Ltd [1964] MLJ 290.

COMPANY LAW2
be inferred from the conditions and situations of a particular case. In this particular case, it was
mentioned by the defendant that he acts as a partner in relation to another. Such statement was
agreed by the plaintiff and hence, supplied the commodities and the goods in favor of the
defendant. However, the defendant fails to make the payment in relation to the goods, which
have been delivered because the defendant do not possess any kind of knowledge in relation to
the commerce regarding business. The plaintiff was keen on filing a suit against the defendants
for causing the violation of the contract by failing to make the payment in relation to the
commodities and goods. It was held by the court that the defendants did not have the right to
renounce the contract and they shall be held to be accountable regarding the contract.
The case of Great Northern Railway Co. v Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132 shall be
considered to be a relevant case in this regard3. In this particular case, Swaffield made
arrangements in relation to the transportation of the horse. The plaintiffs are the owners of the
railway station where the horse should have arrived. Swaffield was absent to collect his horse.
The plaintiffs sent the horse to the nearest stable. The chief issue in this particular case was
whether the plaintiffs would be able to recover the amount that was paid by them regarding the
accommodation of the horse. It was held that the plaintiffs performed their actions in a rational
and sensible manner and hence, the plaintiffs may enjoy the entitlement to recuperate the
expenses.
The case of Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 is an important case in
this regard4. In this case, it was stated that an implied authority may be inferred in relation to the
position or the locus that shall be held by any particular agent. For instance, partners shall have
the authority and the discretion regarding the binding of the other existing partners in the
3 Great Northern Railway Co. v Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132.
4 Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549.