Commercial Law

Commercial Law

Introduction

The position of law on agency gathers significant criticalness with unwinding of global investment regulations. Impressive globalization permits firms to secure possessions by way of agents. Any time the buyer, agent and the vendor are based in distinctive nations there is risk that they are liable to distinctive laws and in this manner are influenced distinctively. The multifaceted nature increments if the principal is undisclosed. In such cases it is imperative to verify the liability of quite a hidden principal. This paper is a critical evaluation of the commercial law case “A Case harshly treated? Watteau v Fenwick re-evaluated”. We need to evaluate, that “Once it is established ...... put upon that authority.”

This paper critically evaluates to the inherent agency power and undisclosed policy or agreement between a principal, agent and a third party. For every company and individuals while employing a third party, Agency agreements are quite common for negotiating a contract. In order to fulfil a contract, the agent must act for the principal under the guidelines of the principal. Agents may act differently for the principals as actual, apparent or usual.

This paper plans to look at the position of common law on the liabilities of undisclosed principal by way of different case laws thinking seriously about that normal law shapes the foundation of predominant legal systems and international principles in managing the matter. This paper further exchanges ideas about and clears up that this is not an exhaustive case law gathering however essential arrangement with an expectance to elucidate the position.

Discussion

This case is centred round an agent, Humble, to whom the principal, Fenwick, appointed license of a hotel. The principal has applied restriction on the agent for his authority which includes that agent is not supposed to buy cigars on credit. However, the agent purchased the cigars on credit and when it was discovered by the sellers, Watteau, that agent is under agency agreement. Watteau decided to sue Fenwick in order to recover the debt. The principal was considered as the liability holder for the act of agent by the court, no matter the agent acted beyond the actual authority. In this case, the agent is considered to have usual authority and therefore principal was liable. This is because purchasing the cigars was usual in this case for a hotel license.

According to our critical evaluation, the decision made by the court meant that this case includes an undisclosed principal, as agent is deemed to have usual authority given to a character of that nature. Partner ship's arrangement analogy was used by the Will J. however he believed that the same should be true for agency agreements. This analogy met flaw because in a partnership agreement the 3rd part is known to as the existence of dormant partner. However, the principal's existence is not necessarily known to third partner in an agency agreement. Agency agreement also includes the decision of a third party, that either an agent or, a principal must be ...