- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
- Posts
The bar manager example in the agency lecture seems to be about express authority because he was specifically unauthorised from buying cigarettes and tobaco products and hence he was in breach of warranty. So I think both the principal and the third party could have a claim against him. So why only the principal had a claim against him and not the third party.
Also in this instance, what does breach of warranty mean. Does it imply that he has breached a lesser term of employment contract and hence the contract is not terminated. Plus, why this breach is classified as breach of warranty and not breach of inominate or condition.Because the third party was entitled to believe that the manager had the usual authority normally given to a bar manager
Why is it breach of warranty? The contract, the main root, was a contract to serve as the manager. The unauthorised purchase of incidentals normally used in the running of a bar doesn’t affect the root of the contract
OK?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.