Ask a question from expert

Ask now

Dawn: A Painting of Vera and Siddo

12 Pages3150 Words129 Views
   

Added on  2020-02-24

About This Document

Law: Law imposed number of duties on agents, and agent owned these duties not only towards the principle but towards third party also. I case law Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd and Australian Insurance Brokers (WA) Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 365. It must be noted that Vera is not liable towards the third party due to the general rule that agents are not liable towards the third party to fulfill the promise made by the agent.

Dawn: A Painting of Vera and Siddo

   Added on 2020-02-24

BookmarkShareRelated Documents
Running Head: Law 1Law
Dawn: A Painting of Vera and Siddo_1
Law2Answer 1Case facts: Vera is the famous painter, and she painted various landscape scenes which are ofhigh artistic merit. She recently painted one more landscape scene and named it Dawn. Thispainting is considered one of the best paintings of the Vera. Later, Vera appointed Siddo as an agent for the purpose of selling her painting. She expects$40000 sale price for her painting, and instruct Siddo not to sell the painting for less than$32000, without taken written approval from her. Part AIssue: painting is sold by Siddo to Queenie for $20000 only? Law: Law imposed number of duties on agents, and agent owned these duties not only towardsthe principle but towards third party also. There is fiduciary relationship between agent andprinciple, breach of duty can be considered as breach of trust. Some of the duties of agent arestated below: Agent is under obligation to follow the instructions given by principle and also the termsrelated to his authority. In other words, agent must not act out of the scope of hisauthority. However, if any specific instructions are given to agent by principle, then agentmust follow those instructions. In case agent fails to follow the instructions given by theprinciple then it is considered as breach of duty. Agents are under obligation to perform their work with reasonable care and skills. I caselaw Mitor Investments Pty Ltd v General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd andAustralian Insurance Brokers (WA) Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 365. In this case, insurance
Dawn: A Painting of Vera and Siddo_2
Law3brokers were appointed by the owner of the hotel. Owner appointed insurance brokers forthe purpose of insuring the hotel against damaged caused by storm, tempest and flood.Broker after receiving instructions from the owner of the hotel, conduct insurance withGeneral Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corp Ltd. Insurance was taken by brokersagainst the flood, but insurance policy did not include damage caused by sea. Hotel was damaged because of cyclone and owner file claim against the insurancecompany. Claim made by owner was failed because policy does not include damagecaused by sea. Later, owner of the hole sue insurance brokers for failed to follow theinstructions given by the owner and also for negligence (Rasmuson, 2001). It must be noted that principle is also liable for the acts done by agent, and some of theseliabilities are stated below:Principle is under obligation towards the third party to fulfill the promise made by theagent.If agent fails to act within the scope of his/her authority then principle is liable towardsthe third party, but this liability arises only when agent act in the ordinary course ofagency. However, principle has right to sue agent for damages in case agent fails to follow theinstructions given by principle, act with due care and skill. There is general rule that agents are not liable towards the third party, but this general rule hassome exceptions also. As per this exception if agent acts out of the scope of their authority or actas they were principle then in such case agents are also liable towards the third party (Us Legal,n.d.).
Dawn: A Painting of Vera and Siddo_3
Law4Application: presently, Vera gives instruction to Siddo to not sell her painting for less than$32000 without her written approval. Siddo fails to follow the instructions given by Vera and sellthe painting for $20000 to Queenie. Siddo is under obligation to perform his functions as per theinstructions given by Vera and with due care, but Siddo fails to fulfill his obligations. ThereforeSiddo is liable towards both Queenie and Vera. Conclusion: In this case, Siddo is liable towards both Queenie and Vera and following are theremedies which are available to the parties:Vera can claim damages against siddo for fails to perform his duty with due care and skill, andalso for not following the mandatory instructions of principle. Both siddo and Vera are liable towards the Queenie, and Vera is bound to sell the painting toQueenie for $20000. Part BIssue: Siddo purchased painting from Vera for $32000 and sell the same to Elly for $38000?Law: there is fiduciary relationship between agent and principle, and both own fiduciary dutytowards each other. In case Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984–85) 156 CLR 41, Court held that number of cases are there which highlight the fiduciaryrelationship between specific classes of people, and these peoples are fiduciary responsibletowards each other. This can be understood through example, principle and agent, doctor andpatient, etc.
Dawn: A Painting of Vera and Siddo_4

End of preview

Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.

Related Documents
Legal Studies - LAW00720 - Case Study
|14
|3250
|90

Assignment on Commercial and Law of Agency
|9
|3036
|107

(solved) Law of Agency - Essay
|11
|3212
|28

Report on Relationship between Agent and Principles
|11
|3196
|47

Assignment on Legal Studies
|8
|1619
|236

chapter 4 law of agency PDF
|11
|1239
|274