- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Mike, I am self-studying Agency Law and was confused about the case Watteau v Fenwick. I read from “casebrief” website that the court held “Defendant is liable for damages. Humble was acting with an authority that was inherently reasonable for an agent in that position”. However, according to the fact “Defendant explicitly instructed Humble not to make any purchases outside of bottled ales and mineral waters, but Humble still entered into an agreement with Plaintiff for the purchase of cigars. ”
I don’t understand why court determine plaintiff’s decision was “inherently reasonable”.
Many thanks for your time in advance!
Because the plaintiff could not have been aware of the restriction imposed by Fenwick and it is perfectly normal for a bar manager to have the authority to buy goods of a type normally sold in bars (in this case, cigars)
I see, in this case will Fedwick be able to sue his agent Humble later on to recover his loss (paid to Watteau) because Humble didn’t follow what he was told to?
Otherwise I felt it is unfair for principal to be held liable for all of agent’s behaviors.
Thanks again for your help.
‘in this case will Fedwick be able to sue his agent Humble later on to recover his loss (paid to Watteau) because Humble didn’t follow what he was told to?’
Yes, but the agent may not have enough money to compensate Fenwick – that’s the risk you take when you take someone to court!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.