Legal Aspects Report: Exploring Types of Agent's Authority

This report delves into the legal aspects of agent's authority, a crucial concept in commercial law, defining the agent's role in creating lawful relationships on behalf of a principal. It explores three primary types of agent authority: express actual authority, implied authority, and usual authority. Express actual authority, as demonstrated in cases like Attwood v. Munnings, involves authority explicitly granted by the principal, either verbally or in writing. Implied authority, illustrated by Ramanathan v. Kumarappa, covers actions logically necessary for fulfilling the agent's duties. Usual authority, highlighted in Watteau v. Fenwick, pertains to actions customary for the agent's role, even if the principal is undisclosed. The report emphasizes the agent's responsibility to act within the scope of their authority, the principal's accountability for the agent's actions, and the importance of understanding these distinctions for legal and commercial purposes. The report concludes by summarizing the key aspects of agent authority and the responsibilities of both agents and principals.

LEGAL ASPECTS

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
TASK 1............................................................................................................................................1
Types of agent's authority.......................................................................................................1
CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................5

INTRODUCTION
Law of agency can be simply defined as a domain of commercial law which used to deal
with a set of contractual , non-contractual and quasi – contractual fiduciary relations involving an
individual who is known as an agent. Agent is someone that is having the power of acting on
behalf of some one others (titled as principal) in order to create a lawful relationship with a
tertiary party (Bogomolov and et. al., 2015). The present report is describing about the various
kinds of agent's authority associated with specific case laws.
TASK 1
Types of agent's authority
There are different forms of legal agents which is playing an important role in area of
commercialised jurisprudence. As common people do not have any idea about concepts relating
with laws , thus, they are not able to handle issues related with legal aspects. For resolving the
same, they used to employ an agent (Tomaževič, Seljak and Aristovnik, 2014). Therefore it can
be said that the responsibility of particular agent is to make them understand about such
conceptions and also give them proper solution of their problems. Hence, a fiducial kinship is
being maintained between two parties where - in one is obligated to another that is called as
principal. That agent is permitted by principal for performing specific works for as well as on the
lieu of him. On the other hand, principal is also bounded by acts of agents which is being carried
on for attaining committed obligations and thus remain within scope of such agent's
authorisation.
Thus, an authorisation of agent simply represents his capableness of binding the
principal. It usually referring to “the integration of entire acts that has been in defined at the time
of agreement among principals and agents where - by agent have to perform instead of the
principal (Keller, 2011). There are basically three types of authorities which is discussed below :
 Express actual authority : This is nothing but a control granted to the representative
(agent) by an individual (principal) is either in a documented or oral format. The scope of
this kind of authorisation is hence to be determined from its spoken or engrossed
agreement between a master and a mediator, customs & use of applicable trades,
occupation as well as the course of transactions or dealings amongst some people. It is to
1

be noted that if a representative get entered into a concord with any other person in
accordance to the actual authority, then that accord would generate special rights as well
as liabilities between the third party and principal.
Following are some of the examples of cases related to the Express Actual Authority :
 Attwood v. Munnings (1827) can be a good example of these kind of authorisation.
Herein a principal at the time of going foreign had permitted his agent as well as
partner for carrying on his commercial activities (Lan and Heracleous, 2010). In
addition to them, he had also told her wife to accept all the bills on lieu of him
affiliated with his personalised business. Thus, he was not held conjugated or
bounded during the acceptation of those bills which was being performed by his life
partner on his position for the commerces. Apart from that, he is also not liable for
conducting any kind of work when hired agent is acting on behalf of him but this was
contrasting from his private business.
 Another case is of Reid v. Rigby (1894) where – in agent has received a loan outside
to his authorisation. In this scenario , a cheque was signed by him on lieu of his
principal so that money could be paid to the workmen or staffs of master. It is to be
noted that hereby contractor was also being hold bound. But at this time, if the third
individual got involved in this situation about the capabilities of agents then after that
overall circumstances would get impacted and being carried on in somehow different
way.
 Express implied authority : This is a type of authority consisting by an agent to perform
chores that should be logically incidental or secondary to & important for the efficacious
execution of his responsibilities. In fact, the contents of implied authorisation normally
relies on the reality and information of particular case. It is also sometimes ascertained by
the norms of commercial actions, its usage or by some businesses (Mitnick, 2015). In
addition to this, it has been found that in this form of authority; an individual by his
words and actions shows that he is having a power whereas actually no control lies in his
hand. Such forms of authorities are not really implied by some agreements but are
arrogated by the behaviour or nature of affinity which has been prevailed in particular
organisation. Each time if any mediator used to act under this implied authority then its
scoping could not be generally identified and therefore different problems associated with
2

responsibility get emerges. In this context, particular agency might be claimed that his
agent is acting beyond his legal powerfulness.
Case linked with Implied authority are stated as follows :
 In the lawsuit of Ramanathan v. Kumarappa, a property dealer was recruited for
discovering a right buyer of specific property. He has received some revenue in
advance on the form of deposit from an expected consumer & embezzled it (Nagy,
2013). In this state of affairs, principal is said to be held liable since that estate
mediator consisting of an implied authorisation for taking deposit.
 Burnett v Clark (1771) M 8491 is another case wherein Burnett in question is James
Burnett of Monboddo, who is Senator of the university of Justice. In this scenery,
obligation of caring is given to him for looking after diseased horse but care provider
got failed in accomplishing his duty. In turn, Lord Monboddo is having the power to
take legal action against Clarke.
 Usual authority : This is last but not the least term linked with legal prospects. Herein
the agents are being liable for each and every unaccredited actions that is performed by
him outside to their limitations. On the other hand, in this case, it is acknowledged or
accepted that the existence of master is not being shown to the tertiary party that is he is
kept unfamiliar from his chief. But , it can not be stated that principals may held out the
agent of having ability to act as an agent and thence was e - stopped.
Case associated with usual authority are mentioned below :
 In the legal proceeding Watteau v. Fenwick (1893), it was declared that an
unrevealed principal who would employ an agent in order to run business should have
the responsibilities regarding any acts of the agent that is secondary to or common in
that concern (Shapiro, Fisher and Wagner, 2012).
 Another case affiliated to this authority is Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park
Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480. This is a United Kingdom corporation
law case, which was concerned about the enforceability of duties against a firm.
CONCLUSION
From the above based report, it could be summarised that agents are some one who are
acting in place of others in order to resolve their specific issues and circumstances by knocking
the door of court or government. Hence, special power are provided in the hand of
3

representatives and thereby he or she ought to be obligated for his or her duties. At the same
time, the principal who is catering obligations to such mediators have to make sure that his
appointed agent would misuse the given benefits and also be confident about its work which
should be ethically correct & hence have to carried on only for the welfare of his master.
Different types of authorities associated with agents has also been discussed in this assignment.
4

REFERENCES
Books and journal
Bogomolov, A. and et. al., 2015. Overview user interface of emergency call data of a law
enforcement agency. U.S. Patent Application 14/581,823.
Keller, S., 2011. Texas versus Chevron: Texas Administrative Law on Agency Deference after
Railroad Commission v. Texas Citizens.
Lan, L. L. and Heracleous, L., 2010. Rethinking agency theory: The view from law. Academy of
management review. 35(2). pp.294-314.
Mitnick, B. M., 2015. Agency theory. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management.
Nagy, D. M., 2013. Owning stock while making law: an agency problem and a fiduciary
solution. Wake Forest L. Rev. 48. p.567.
Shapiro, S., Fisher, E. and Wagner, W., 2012. The Enlightenment of Administrative Law:
Looking Inside the Agency for Legitimacy. Wake Forest L. Rev. 47. p.463.
Tomaževič, N., Seljak, J. and Aristovnik, A., 2014. The impact of CAF enablers on job
satisfaction: The case of the Slovenian law enforcement agency. Total quality
management & business excellence. 25(11-12). pp.1336-1351.
5