Q1 is not clear at all, answer should be D as per lecture notes and lectures.
Please clarify.
Thanks
M
MikeLittleTutor·
I don't know which is answer D - the answers change the sequence from one test to the next
The answer here is that the agent will not be liable where the agent discloses that they are acting on behalf of a principal. The third party is aware of a valid principal and thus accepts that the agent is an extension of that principal. Incidentally, when the principal finds out what the agent has done, there may well be fallout. But initially, it will be the principal that is liable
The similar option is where the agent's authority has been terminated but, in this case, there is no longer an agency arrangement (whereas, in the correct option, there IS an agency arrangement)
Does that make it clearer?
B
Beatrice·
Why is this the correct answer of where agent would not be liable, he his acting on his own behalf but has disclosed that he his an agent.
can anyone or mike clarify this for me please to get a better understanding?
M
MUHAMMAD AMMAR·
Question 1 of Agency Relationship topic:
there is confusion why option 3 is correct answer instead of option 4.
Thank You
M
MUHAMMAD AMMAR·
suggested correct option: agents act on his own behalf but does identify that he is an agent
other option need clarification: agents authority has been terminated by the principal but third part not aware of this fact
A
Asher·
The questions were very useful
T
tfraser17·
For question 4, (which felt a little tricky) how is "in formation" not an acknowledged way?
Isn't it the almost the same as implied?
M
MikeLittleTutor·
No, not really. The three 'correct' options (necessity, estoppel and ratification) are acknowledged ways in which an agency relationship can be established
I could also have included the possibility that such a relationship could be established by contract and, I suppose, one might interpret that as creating the relationship by formation
But the question was looking to see that you had fully accepted the three technical, non-ambiguous, totally clear ways in which a Court (for example) might accept that an agency relationship did exist even though there was no formal agreement
OK?
M
MikeLittleTutor·
The innocent third party will initially hold the principal liable but the principal will, in turn, seek redress against the agent for breach of warranty of authority
So, even though it might appear that the agent's actions will be binding on the principal (and they ARE binding on the principal) the agent doesn't escape liability to compensate the principal
Better?
B
Busola Denton·
Q1: As per pg 56 in the notes, i choose the 4th option but i dont believe i agree with the answer i.e. option 1
Please clarify.
Thanks
The answer here is that the agent will not be liable where the agent discloses that they are acting on behalf of a principal. The third party is aware of a valid principal and thus accepts that the agent is an extension of that principal. Incidentally, when the principal finds out what the agent has done, there may well be fallout. But initially, it will be the principal that is liable
The similar option is where the agent's authority has been terminated but, in this case, there is no longer an agency arrangement (whereas, in the correct option, there IS an agency arrangement)
Does that make it clearer?
can anyone or mike clarify this for me please to get a better understanding?
there is confusion why option 3 is correct answer instead of option 4.
Thank You
other option need clarification: agents authority has been terminated by the principal but third part not aware of this fact
Isn't it the almost the same as implied?
I could also have included the possibility that such a relationship could be established by contract and, I suppose, one might interpret that as creating the relationship by formation
But the question was looking to see that you had fully accepted the three technical, non-ambiguous, totally clear ways in which a Court (for example) might accept that an agency relationship did exist even though there was no formal agreement
OK?
So, even though it might appear that the agent's actions will be binding on the principal (and they ARE binding on the principal) the agent doesn't escape liability to compensate the principal
Better?
Kindly explain why option is correct