- This topic has 15 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by
.
- Posts
Sir if an agent commits a tort in ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS then principal will be liable
Right?Correct … but the agent is also liable so the principal could be entitled to compensation from the agent. Unless the principal condoned or encouraged the agent to commit the tortious act
OK?
Andrea worked for lady gertrude and part of her job was to buy plants ornaments for the gardens of her country manor house. When her doughter harriet was about ti finish studying at university, she told andrea that Harriet would be taking on these responsibilities.
What is the agency relationship between andrea and lady g
Express agreement
Implied agreementReally?
This is surely more of an employment law question! “Andrea worked for Lady Gertrude and part of her job was to buy ….”
How is this not an employment question with the employer, Lady Gertrude, varying the terms of Andrea’s employment?
I don’t understand!
In the context of Andrea’s activities at the garden centre when she buys the plants and ornaments …
… has Lady Gertrude specifically said “You will buy the plants and ornaments …”? in which case, that’s clearly an express agreement / authority, or …
… in the past, when Andrea has turned up at the manor house and Lady Gertrude has paid Andrea for the plants and ornaments and this course of activities has recurrently been the case, that would suggest an implied agreement / authority
Difficult to be definitive without further detail
OK?
Sir the further part was
A few weeks later andrea ordered some very expensive roses and marble statues form lady gertrude main supplier and collected the goods the next day for her own garden. The invoice was delivered to lady Gertrude
And then the question of agency relationshipIt’s not a happy bunny that’s replying to this last post of yours! :- (
If you’d told me that in your initial post I would have been more certain in my response!
As it is, my last paragraph did in fact cover the situation.
By the course of trade that has already been established, Lady Gertrude has implicitly given authority for Andrea to but plants and ornaments on Lady Gertrude’s account
This does not absolve Andrea from liability to Lady Gertrude but Lady Gertrude herself is liable to the garden centre.
OK?
NB – Please, in future, give me the entire scenario!
So sir it is express agreement right?
Sir i first tried to send you full question by copying it from some other website but i was not able to do it…i thought that it must be some word limit problem that’s why..
Sorry for the inconvenienceBut it is express agreement right?
This was in my last post … ” Lady Gertrude has implicitly given authority for Andrea to but plants and ornaments on Lady Gertrude’s account”
So why do you think it’s express?
Well, I obviously disagree! The following is cut and paste from Kaplan’s own Knowledge Bank:
https://kfknowledgebank.kaplan.co.uk/law/business-organisation/agency-law
“Express agreement
This is where the principle (P) actually appoints the agent (A) as his agent. The agreement can be made orally or in writing.Implied agreement
This is where P has not expressly agreed that A should be his agent. However, the agreement can be implied from the parties’ conduct or relationship”.Now I still believe that the relationship between Lady Gertrude and Andrea fits better into the ‘implied agreement’ category
What do you think?
Sir since the question states that PART OF HER JOB i guess it means there was some express agreement?
But still i am unsure of this questionI really do not follow your logic in assuming that the expression ‘part of her job’ necessarily implies an express agreement.
Other than during the training period when I was taking exams to become a chartered accountant, I have never had a written employment contract.
Obviously I was told what was expected of me in the various employments I held after qualification but, to the best of my recollection, there was never a witness to the discussion between me and the interviewer.
I suppose that I COULD have claimed that the job requirements for my various position were implicit and certainly by sticking to those requirements it would be hard for me to claim implicit agreement.
But I still struggle to see your giant stride in logic from ‘part of her job’ to the existence of an express agreement.
OK?
Andrea worked for lady Gertrude and part of her job was to buy plants, ornaments and furniture for the gardens of her county manor house. When her daughter, Harriet, was about to finish studying at uni, Lady G told Andrea that Harriet would be taking on these responsibilities.
A few weeks later, Andrea ordered some very expensive roses and marble statues from Lady G main supplier and collected the goods the next day for her own garden. The invoice was delivered to Lady G.
Which of the following best describe the agency relationship between andrea and lady Gertrude ?
A Ratification
B Express agreement
C Implied agreement
D Necessity
Sir kindly explain the answer to this questionKrrish, sorry about the delay in my response. When I click on the ‘Ask ACCA Tutor’ link, I see that you posted 2 days ago. But that was not the case yesterday when I checked!
In addition, when I go to the Ask ACCA Tutor’ law forum, I can’t see any outstanding posts to which I have failed to respond.
It’s a mystery!
However, importantly, please don’t feel that I am ignoring you!
Now, this latest post in which you have, I assume, posted the complete question about Lady Gertrude, niece student Harriet and naughty Andrea and you ask me to explain the answer which apparently is ‘express agreement’.
Krrish, I can’t explain the Kaplan answer – sorry 🙁
As per my previous posts on this thread, my answer remains ‘implied agreement’.
My reasoning is as per my post from 14 February at 7.07 pm and I’ve neither seen, heard nor read anything that makes me want to change my mind.
I usually conclude my answers with the question ‘OK?’ but it would seem to be out of place in this instance. I can only suggest that maybe Kaplan’s author has made a mistake.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.