What is the extent of an agent's authority- (a) in normal case; and (b) in an emergency. Write a note on agency by necessity.
Ans. Extent of an Agent's Authority—
The extent of the implicit power of the agent authorized to manage the business or property of his manager depends to a large extent on the nature of these actions or property and the degree to which they are placed under his control. It is generally assumed to be complementary to the work to be performed, and includes the authority to do all those necessary and appropriate things that must be done in carrying out the business in the usual and usual way. When an agent is generally employed by the management, the business of his manager has the authority to make reasonable and sound purchases of goods at the account of his manager on conditions such as credit and time of payment, as is customary to purchase these goods in similar situations; But he does not have the authority to purchase goods of a type or amount that are not normally held or brought for such business. Article 188 of the Contract Law states that "An agent who has the authority to do what he has the power to do everything legal is necessary to do everything legal necessary to do such an act." An agent who has the authority to do business has the authority to do everything legal necessary for this purpose or is usually done while conducting such business.
Illustration
A forms his agent to continue his shipbuilding business. B- It is permissible to purchase timber and other materials and to hire workers for the purpose of practicing the work.
Authority of the Agent in Emergency -
The agent has the authority, in the event of an emergency, to carry out all of these actions with a view to protecting his manager from loss, as will a person with regular wisdom, in his special case, do in similar circumstances. (Section 189). Thus, for example, a sales agent may have repaired the goods if necessary.
A sends judgments to B in Calcutta, with directions to send them immediately to C in Cuttack. B may sell judgments in Calcutta if they cannot bear the trip to Cuttack without spoiling.
If circumstances compel this, the man in charge of someone else's property may incur additional and unauthorized expenses to preserve it. This work of the agent will bind the manager to the extent necessary.
Barron Park observed him in the case of Huntzen v. Born 7m. And. W 595, the master of the ship through the foreclosure instrument can pledge the ship, if necessary during the flight to protect from accidents, to repair the ship, and to provide the means to continue the journey to the destination. He may, without the knowledge of the owner, compel him to contract a loan for this purpose; But he must prove that the necessity of this step was imposed on him, that he did not have money owned by his employers, and that he was not able to buy the money in any other way than mortgaging. [Belden v. Campbell, 5 Ex. 86].
Agency by necessity
An agency of necessity is an agency that arises from a state of emergency arising from a situation that makes it necessary or appropriate for the agent to act without obtaining the consent or authorization of the principal, in order to prevent damage to the manager. It arises when the duty is imposed on a person to act on behalf of another person outside the contract and to avoid irreparable damage. Courts recognize this agency relationship.
The agency necessarily becomes necessary in wealth management. For example, many wealth managers participate in creating wills, trusts, and overseeing inheritance of wealth from one generation to another. If a family member who possesses the family’s wealth becomes an agent of the family’s wealth, becomes incapacitated in an accident or is ill, another family member with similar capabilities and an understanding of the family’s finances may assume the role of necessity.
The doctrine of the necessity agency was initially relevant only with regard to the transportation of goods by sea, as the master took action to save the ship or goods in the event of an emergency. Then it extended to include cases related to the transport of goods by road. This is illustrated by The Great Northern Railway Co v. Swaffield, 82 as the claiming railroad company transported a horse to a station on behalf of the defendant. When the horse arrived, no one was gathering it, so the prosecutor sent him to the stable. After several months, the claimant paid the stable fee and then sought to recover what he had paid from the defendant. The claimant's claim was successful in responding, although this included extending the principle of necessity agency to include cargo carriers by road. There was an agency of necessity because he found that the plaintiff had no choice but to arrange for proper care of the horse.
0 Comments