Law of agency - Wikipedia
The relationship of principal and agent may exist between the This means that one of the two situations must exist before agency by ratification can arise. had failed to prove facts sufficient to establish a case of estoppels. Ratification: the submission of a constitution to an agent or group for their approval “in order to establish a true relationship of representation it is necessary. Agency relationships always involve an agent and a principal, though the agency This means that the conduct of both parties expresses an intent to create an agency relationship. An act of ratification by the principal makes the invalid act of agency become legally valid. × . Go to Constitutional Law.
Improper delegation— This comes under section of the Indian Contract Act, This is when an agent without any authority appoints a sub-agent. The table shows a distinction between an agent and a sub-agent: Agent Sub-agent An agent is appointed by a principal and is under his control. A sub-agent is appointed by an agent and as such is under the control of the agent.
An agent acts under the principal. A sub-agent acts under an agent.
A privity of contract exists between a principal and an agent. No privity of contract exists between a principal and a sub-agent.
An agent can ask for remuneration from the principal. A sub-agent cannot ask for remuneration from the principal. Sections and talk about substituted agents. When an agent having the authority to do so, names another person to act for the principal in the business of the agency, then such a person is called a substituted agent and not a sub-agent. Thus a contractual relation comes in existence between the principal and the substitute agent and therefore the substituted agent is directly liable to the principal to perform his duties.
The distinction between a sub-agent and a substituted agent is important because an agent is liable in relation to the acts of a sub-agent, but an agent carries no liability to the principal for the acts of the substituted agent. The table shows a distinction between a sub-agent and a substituted agent: Sub-agent Substituted agent An agent appoints a sub-agent and therefore a sub-agent is under the control of an agent.
A substituted agent is only named by the agent but is under the control of the principal. A sub-agent acts under the agent. A substituted agent acts independently for his principal. A sub-agent cannot be held liable by the principal, except in case of fraud.
(3) Formation of agency
A substituted agent can be held liable by his principal. A sub-agent is not entitled to any remuneration from the principal. A substituted agent can ask for his remuneration from his principal. No contract exists between a sub-agent and the principal.
Law of agency
A contractual relationship exists between the substituted agent and the principal. An agent is basically an employee. The key difference is that an agent and principal make an agreement that the agent will represent the principal in specific transactions or situations.
An agent can only act on behalf of a principal for certain issues depending on the agreement. For example, an NBA player hires an agent. An agreement between the two may only give the agent power and authority to negotiate contracts.
The principal can control an agents conduct for any duties specified in the agreement. Though an agent can represent a principal in anything, many principals limit the scope of an agent's representation. For example, if you were selling your house, you might hire an agent.
The agent only represents you in selling your house. How Is an Agency Relationship Formed? An agency relationship is formed when two parties agree that one will represent the other in certain situations.
There are four general ways an agency relationship is formed: He can, therefore, neither make avlid proposal nor make a valid acceptance as defined in section-2, clause a and b.
He cannot, therefore, for the purposes of this Act be strictly called a promisor within the meaning of clause c. Nor can, therefore, anything done by the promise be strictly called a consideration at the desire of a promisor as contemplated by clause d.
If the part of the benefit was received by a person during his minority and the other part after attaining the age of majority, a promise by him after attaining majority to pay an amount in respect of both the benefits is enforceable, as that constitutes a valid consideration for the promise. State liability for the act officers The matter has been discussed under sec.
In Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasari v.
Moreshwar Parashram, the contention was raised that the contracts having not been expressed to be made by the President as required by Article of the Indian constitution were void, but it was ruled that the contracts in question are not void simply because the state officers who made such contracts could be sued upon them, and they could be by the Government. In the case of a continuing obligation, such as the the engagement of a servant or the continuance of tenancy, an absence of repudiation or acceptance of service or rent with full knowledge of the facts, implied an undertaking to adhere to the obligation and operates as ratification or renewal of the old contract by the party accepting the service or rent.
It places all the parties in exactly the same position as they would have occupied in the case of a precedent agency by formal constitution.
Agency under Contracts
So ratification will support an action previously brought upon the contract in the name of the principal, though without his knowledge. The same is equally true of arbitration. Agreements which are subject to ratification are voidable in nature.
If it is ratifies by the principal then it becomes legally valid in the court of law. If it is not ratified then the contract will lose its validity. Similarly if the principal has not consented and not given his consent to his agent to enter into agreement still he owes a duty towards third party because principal is bound by the acts done by an agent or the contracts made by him on behalf of the principal in the same manner, as if the acts had been done or the contracts had been entered into by the principal himself, in person.
The principal is vicarious liable for the frauds or torts committed by the agent, while acting in the course of the business for the principal. So through this project great effort has been put by the researcher to bring the the best about the above the topic.
Bibliography Table Of Cases 1. Imperial Bank of Canada v. Mary Victoria Begley, A. C at p. Joseph  1 ch. P at p. Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasari v. Ananthappa, 16 MLJ 8. Sree Narayan, 11 CWN Beale, Chitty on Contracts 30th ed.
Andrew Grubb, The Law of Contract 3rd ed. Atul Chitale, Section 2: India, Asia Pacific Arbitration Review, 2.
Indian Contract Act, 2.