- This topic has 5 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Q) Jasper is the manager of a sports shop. Ravan, shop owner, allows Jasper to order running equipment but has told him he must not order any other sports equipment. However, Jasper decides to place an order for cycling accessories. Ravan refuses to pay the cycling supplier.
Based on the laws of agency, who is liable to the cycling supplier, and for what reason?A) Ravan is liable because Jasper acted within his implied authority as store manager
B) Jasper is liable because he acted without authority
C) Ravan is liable because he gave Jasper responsibility for ordering stock
D) Ravan is liable because Jasper exercised his express authority as store managerAnswer is A, but i don’t get the implied authority concept, can you please explain in general and also this question.
Thank you
This is so similar to the case Watteau v Fenwick – a bar manager ordering tobacco products for the bar despite the bar owner having strictly forbidden him to buy any tobacco products
It lies within the apparent (implied) authority for a manager of a business to be able to place orders for goods of a description normally sold through that business
Have you watched the lecture covering agency?
Or read about Watteau v Fenwick?
You should
There is no lecture on agency law. Is there?
I did read about Watteau v Fenwick, but i dont exactly get the concept. The decision is that Fenwick is liable, why?
The bar owner is liable to the tobacco company because the bar manager is acting with the apparent authority apparently given to the bar manager by the bar owner
The bar manager is liable to the bar owner (and good luck to the bar owner when he tries to recover the money from the bar manager!)
The mcq I posted above, according to that:
Since Jasper is the manager, and it is within implied authority of manager given by Ravan (owner) to deal with the shop however they like, yeah? That is the reason Jasper is at no liability and hence Ravan has to pay to the cycling supplier?But Ravan told Jasper not to order anything so it’s not kind of fair but yeah, for the supplier Ravan is liable.
Apart from this, if this case was taken to the court, Ravan would’ve won the case against Jasper, right?
You’re looking at the area of “apparent authority of an agent”
Where a person is employed in a business – like a bar manager – and it is normal in that kind of business for that status of employee to have authority (say to buy goods for sale in the business), then how is an innocent third party (the tobacco salesperson) to know that the bar manager has a specific restriction on his powers?
If you’re going to restrict the authority of those people that you employ in a managerial capacity …. you need to make sure that that restriction is clearly brought to the attention of others
How?
Heaven only knows!
Maybe a sign behind the bar “Notice to all tobacco product salespeople … this bar manager has NO authority to purchase tobacco products and the owner of this establishment will not be liable to pay for any tobacco products ordered by the manager of this bar”
That would look good wouldn’t it! Not!
“Apart from this, if this case was taken to the court, Ravan would’ve won the case against Jasper, right?”
That is a most unlikely scenario!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.