• Agency is an exception to the doctrine of privity of contract
• Agent and principal - both can sue and be sued on terms of contract
Case name Facts Issue Decision Rule
New Zealand NZS Had stevedores HoL – held for A third party can
Shipping v AM (stevedores) provided stevedores – sue if contractor
Satterthwaite worked for sufficient loading goods acts as third
(The FSN in consideration to for AMS was party’s agent –
Eurymedon) loading and be a party to sufficient third party to
(1975) unloading contract consideration provide
ship. consideration for
agreement
Formation of Agency by:
Agreement
Heard v Pilley Landlord and tenant Regular oral contract – no special formalities
(1869)
Freeman and Kapoor appointed by CoA held D company Where an agreement
Lockyer v D company to handle was bound to pay P exists to appoint an
Buckhurst Park land sale – but acted for their work – agent, we speak of an
Properties beyond his actual Kapoor had ‘actual ‘actual authority’
[1964] authority but within authority’ vested in the agent,
normal authority of which may be express
his role or implied.
European Where instructions If agent fails to seek Express actual
Asian Bank v are clear but clarification, they will authority – clearly
Punjab & Sind erroneous, P will be not be able to rely on defined
Bank (No 2) liable to A on the the vagueness of the
[1983] basis of contract instructions vis-à-vis
actually made the P
Waugh v HB Solicitor/client Such authority as the Implied actual
Clifford & Sons relationship involving circumstances seem authority –
(1982) an implied authority to suggest circumstances of a
in the conduct of contract gives out
litigation to negotiate roles of A and P to
settlement of case parties – also implied
form conduct
2