Professional Documents
Culture Documents
12 Chapter 5
12 Chapter 5
provides as follows :
bound for his act to the third person, but the minor will
following ways :
1. By express contract.
2. By implied contract.
3. By ratification.
contract of agency.
5. Section 2,The Indian Contract Act,l872. See also
Satyadeva Narayan Sinha and others v.Triveni Prasad
and others,A.I.R. (1936) Pat, 153-
-123-
15
In Ishaq Abdul Karim v. Madan Lai , the principal
them at any price he choose. The court held that the agent
in cash or otherwise.
contract.
agency.
1A TO
ordinary circumstances'1 and (ii) in emergency ^.
interest.
211 and 214 of the Act. By virtue of section 211 of the Act
operation of law.
necessity.
are fulfilled :
A and B.
acts.
ratification.
authority.
That is, the husband is not liable if the wife has borrowed
that
the contract;
property.
. 28
between husband and wife, where the wife may pledge the
credit.
(3)» By Ratification
behalf such act is done may ratify the act. In case the act
ratification :
another's behalf,
or authority of ratifier.
competent to authorise an
ac.t cannot impart
31
validity to it by ratifying., it.
him by A.
34
Act, 1872.
mvo
co co
to which it relates.
agreement is ratified.
to be binding on A.
42
Effect of ratificatin
principal.
also from the date on which the contract was made i.e. the
ways:
1. By act of parties.
2. By operation of law.
CO^
M
«
^
on
-
d cv
Ph
rn
tfl
p
d
> iC 0
>
C
2
O
d
'
tJ
•
o'
OT
-o
CM
d>
o
d
d
H W
d)MO
<D CO
d
o
d
d
•
J 1
'
H-
3
—rH
M
CT\
K
CM
C
CD
—
d
>
VJ
“
(i). by mutual consent.
terminated.
also noted that such breach should .not adversely affect the
agent. Despite, such breach the third party can sue the
notice-'
qo to the agent. The revocation may be express or
SI
implied. An implied revocation can be inferred from
authority and the third person does not know the fact of
person with whom the agent enters into a' contract knew of
156
the termination of the agency.
sell A's land to pay himself out of sale proceeds the debt
Liability to compensate
authority at any time before the agent could bind him for
&2
his acts 5 but he cannot do so arbitrarily. Where an agency
Rs.400 per month. The agency was for a fixed period. It was
his will.
the agent had already made with the third party before the
renunciation.
(viii). War.
of Madras High Court and have held that the agency is not
any other means before the agent could do the act, there is
English law.
with a third party who also does not know the principal's
agency terminates
77- Section 208, The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
78. Section 209, The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
79- S.R.M.C.T.S.S.P.A. Chettiyar Firm v. V.U. on Maung,
A.I.R.(1940) P.C. 211.
80. Section 201, The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
-155 -
party with whom the agent makes the contract can sue the
useless.
Contract Act.
(viii). War
void.
relationships or contracts :
agent. ^
85 This aspect of agency indeed, supports the
hxs principal.^
94
party has no right to sue both the principal and the agent.
98
He can only sue either the principal or the agent.
authority.
dettail.
enforced in the same manner and will have the same legal
1. Rights of Principal.
2. Duties of Principal.
as follows :
with a Bank, which carries with it the duty of the bank to pay
VO
VO
VO
^
H
M -H M -H O
K
m P <
O H H
—3 OVVJl
rH
CSV
=1
O OPCOOH OP HO
• T3
•
.
-
VO
CTiH OOEh
cd
d
cd
ft
cd OV
•
'PC
CO
—
'-'C O
C
O
H Pcd vOOJ
O
1 —
—
•
• Xi
•
•
Id
r—
rH OJ
—1
ft c
cd 03
•
-Ti
CO
VO
»{
t-
C\J
rH
OV
CVJ
JC
T)
•H
o
pu
po
<
po
P
—
CJ
d
cd
O
cd
d
o
a
0)
H
>
*
165-
without authority
without his authority, if the person, for whom the act has
into contract both at the date when it was made and when it
was ratified.
follows :
where the agent does not even disclose his character that
can also enforce the contract even though the agent has not
disclosed him. That is, even in the cases where the agent
his own name, the principal can sue the third party on the
agent had been' the principal. Thus, this section deals with
neither knew nor had reason to believe that the person with
119
whom he entered into contract was an agent. ^
had known that the agent was not a principal, he would not
subsisting between the agent and the third party. That is,
CM
O
Act, 1872.
CM CM
1
rH
CM
Ibid.
I
-170-
party.
also sue but his rights under a contract can only arise
enforced in the same manner and will have the same legal
his act, the ratifier is bound by his act. That is, agency
CM CM CM
t^CO
ChO h
moo
Act, 1872.
132. Section 192, The Indian Contract Act, 1872.
- 173 -
1S i
agent and he acts under control of the agent and noo
the principal can be sued by the third party with whom the
without authority
For example, an agent for sale may get the goods repaired
•H T> tH
0-
CVJ-=t CM
rH
rococo
ro^t la
CO
-P -H -P
•H -P *H
rH
E—
.c
H
X> G T)
•P hH -P
-P C A -P
-P — -P
<
— I r-H
— I CQ i—!
G Pi G
G
o
G cd C
c
?
(DEO)
O G V
QJ
cd cd cd
o < o
cd cc cd
o
O
H
•
i PG E
la
I
rH
o> <
CO o
m
<
— —
>
cd <U
bO
«
2
•
Ii
co
rH
CTs
o-
CO
x:
o
c
G
o
—
•
<
I
-174-
from loss.
time, the agent can do all such things which can save the
the bags at market rate. The court held that the plaintiffs
for 4000 rupees on the ship and another for like sum on the
ship but not the premium for the policy on the cargo.
l4o
buy 500 sheep for him. B buys 500 sheep and 200 lambs for
third party who contracts with agent knows that the agent
of the agent.
Hundis in due course, though the agent firm was not legally
paid money for Hundis in the belief that the agent had a
148
valid authority. The principal is liable in the cases
been led into an honest belief that the agent was having an
the Bank to revocer money, the court held that there was no
OO
4- — H
i
rH
H
•l
i!
CO
P
i1
P
CM
CO
XX
w
-P
—
—
—
— —
fn
c
a
O
<U
<D -— - r — t
^ -
w
P C
P .'O
"
>
CO
t
t
)
•
•
f C
i
i
!I
■
CM
l1
M H
k
rH
CM
ro--
CM
vH
<
r
(
l
•
.
J
•
-ov cn
I
f{
CO C \
VO
— —
"
O
avo
C\ c—
CM
t-~
O
o
J
cc
— —
4
ctS
-
"L
4
•
• LPi
s
'
1i
ii
rH
l
'
i
H
K
rH
<
CM
<
—r
~
T
\
•
•
•
•
\
I
-180-
the wife and, therefore, this section does not apply and
shares of wife were not liable for the amount due on the
overdraft.
Ibid.
•
by third prty to the agent to carry them (in boat) for the
did not take receipt of cheque and money from the clerk.
bank was held not liable. The Supreme Court held that the
it be true or false.
and agent can be sued, the third party has right to elect
principal liable.
responsible for the loss, and did not purport to make the
when the agent discloses the fact of agency but not the
principal was liable for the rent. The third party upon
of them.
Conclusion
may be enforced in the same manner and will have the same
third person. But, the principal can sue and be sued by the
between the agent and the third party, yet it is not the
entered into between the agent and the third party only in
two cases : (1) where the contract is made by a sub-agent]-^
********************