DOC 2

.pdf

School

Universiti Teknologi Mara**We aren't endorsed by this school

Course

ECO 101

Subject

Law

Date

Dec 26, 2024

Pages

Uploaded by DoctorBook28478

PART A CASE REVIEW QUESTION 1: LAW OF AGENCY a) Great Northern Railway v Swaffield In Great Northern Railway v Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132, the railway company carried the defendant’s horse to its contracted destination. On arrival, there was no one to meet it. The station master did not know the defendant or his agent’s address and directed that the horse be put in a stable. The railway company later claimed the charges for the stable. The defendant refused to pay. In this case, the court was held that the plaintiff acted as an agent of necessity in this matter. b) Springer v Great Western Railway CoGreat Western Railway Company as defendant agreed to carry plaintiff’s tomatoes from Channels Island to London, by ship to Weymouth and by train to London. The ship was stopped at Channels Island for three days due to bad weather. Eventually, when the ship arrived at Weymouth, the defendant's employees were on strike, tomatoes were unloaded by casual laborers but it was delayed for two days. At that time, some of the tomatoes were found to be bad. So, the defendant decided to sell the tomatoes as they felt that tomatoes could not arrive in Covent Garden market in a good and saleable condition. When the plaintiff found out about this, the plaintiff wanted to claim damages from the defendant. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages because the defendant ought to have communicated with the plaintiff when the ship arrived at Weymouth to get instruction.

COMMENT Therefore, I conclude in the case of Great Northern Railway v Swaffield, there was an agency of necessity because the plaintiff was found to have had no choice but to arrange for the proper care of the horse. Under certain circumstances a person may become the agent of another without having been appointed as such. Section 142 of the Contract Act 1950 states that an agent must have an authority to do all such acts for the purpose of protecting his principle from loss as would be done by a person of ordinary prudence, in his own case, under similar circumstances. In addition, when agent being trusted by the principle’s property and later it will become necessary for him due to the emergency situation, to do something in order to preserve and to protect that property although he has no authority to do so. It appears that such an agency will only be implied where there is already some existing contractual relationship between the principal and the person who act on his behalf. So, in this case of Great Northern Railway v Swaffield the court was held that the plaintiff acted as an agent of necessity in this matter. Next, in the case of Springer v Great Western Railway Co, the defendant has failed to communicate with the plaintiff when they could have done so, thus, there was no agency of necessity. Section 167 of the law of contract Act 1950 states that it is the duty of an agent, in case of difficulty to use all reasonable diligence in communicating with his principle, and seeking to obtain his instructions. So, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages because the defendant ought to have communicated with the plaintiff.