Ans 1- According to Section 182 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 “An ‘agent’ is a person

employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The
person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented is called a ‘principal’. In the current
scenario ‘Radhe’ is an agent for the MNC as Radhe has been appointed by the company to
represent it and to have dealings on behalf of the company in India where it does not have its
corporate office. With the view of the definition it is easy to see a servant as an agent thereby
the Allahabad Hight Court gave a precise way for the courts to test the agency relationship
between the parties. In the said statement Justice Dhawan said “it is not necessary that if the
partnership deed explicitly calls the relationship between the parties as ‘principal and agent’ it
is for the court to determine that the incidence if the relationship and evidence within the said
case if not finds an agency therefore saying the relationship as an agency in the contract would
not lead it to be an agency in itself.

As for the competency of the company to appoint Radhe as its agent, it is defined under section
183 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 where the act states that “ Any person who is of the age of
majority according to the law to which he’s subject, and who’s of sound mind may employ an
agent. This section describes the necessary requirements of a person/company in this case to
be competent to employ an agent, and for the question of Radhe’s competency to become an
agent, the Indian contract act provide a clear explanation in this regard in Section 184 where it
states that “ As between the principal and the third party, any person may become an agent, but
no person who’s not of the age of majority and sound mind can become an agent, so as to be
responsible to his principal according to provision in that behalf.

With this relation of Radhe and the MNC there comes the specific duties determined under the
act, such as the duty to execute mandate of the principal, the agent is presumed to perform the
work which he has been appointed to do , any failure in this regard would make the agent liable
to the principal. According to Section 211 An agent is bound to conduct the business of his
principal according to the direction given by the principal, or in absence of the said direction,
according to the customs which prevails in doing business of the same kind at the same place
where the agent conducts such business. When an agent acts otherwise, he’s liable. This creates
a obligation towards radhe to conduct the dealings and business of the companies according to
the direction of the company. The second duty of the agent revolves around applying his skills
and diligence while conducting the business, it is defined under section 212 of the Indian
contract act, 1872 which states that, an agent is bound to conduct the business of the agency
with as much skill as is generally possessed by a person engaged in similar kinds of businesses,
the agent is also bound to act with reasonable diligence and to act with such skill as he
possesses, and to compensate the principal to the losses made by his own neglect. The standard
of care was also established in the case of Pandurang vs Jairamdas Pandurang where the court
allowed the appeal of Pandurang when it was satisfied that the agent acted with neglect which
lead to loses to Pandurang. An agent is also required to communicate with the principal as
mention in section 214 which says, It is the duty of an agent in cases of difficulty to use all
reasonable diligence of communicating with his principal, and in seeking to obtain his
instruction.

Radhe’s liability towards the is the same as it would be with respect to the Indian contract act
and with respect to the Foreign principal the Indian contract act, under section 230(1) says that,
when an agent contracts for a “Merchant resident abroad” there is a presumption that the agent
undertakes personal liability. With this exception to the personal liability, it makes Radhe
personally responsible and bound by the contracts of the principal as opposed to section 230.

Ans 3- The given agreement has been drafted with the section 4 of the Sale of Goods Act,
1930. The customs of the said contract are characterized under the section 5 (1) which says that
"an agreement of offer is made by a proposal to purchase or sell products at a cost and the
acknowledgment of quite an offer. The agreement may accommodate the quick conveyance of
products or prompt installment of the cost or both, or for the conveyance or installment by
portions, or that the conveyance or installment or both will be delayed." The said contract
manages the conveyance of merchandise and installment for the equivalent in portions.
According to the arrangements of the section 9(1) the cost in the agreement of offer might be
fixed by the agreement or might be left to be fixed in way along these lines concurred or might
be dictated by the course of managing between the gatherings. The merchandise in concern
with respect to this exchange have been learned under the arrangements of the part 18 which
expresses that where there is an agreement available to be purchased of unascertained products,
no property in the products is moved to the purchaser except if and until the merchandise are
discovered. According to the arrangements of the segment 34 it tends to be perceived that a
conveyance of a piece of the merchandise, in advancement of the conveyance of the entire, has
similar impact to pass the property in such products, as a conveyance of the entirety. Given all
the subtleties of the exchange and agreement, it is protected to state that it satisfies every single
required condition. The given contract initiates a case of instalment deliveries under section 38
of the Sale of goods act, 1930 since it was initially decided by both the parties that the
transaction will occur in instalments, therefore it is in accordance with the provision of 38(1)
and 38(2).

In the given situation M/s ABC ltd is an unpaid seller and according to section 45(1) of the
Sale of Goods Act, 1930 “ the seller of goods is deemed to be an ‘unpaid seller’ within the
meaning of the act (i) when the whole of the price has not been paid or tendered, (ii) when a
bill of exchange or other negotiable instrument has been received as conditional payment, and
the condition on which it was received has not been fulfilled by reason of dishonor od the
instrument or otherwise. The unpaid seller has certain rights which are- (a) As per the
provisions of the section 48, when an unpaid seller has made part delivery of the goods, he may
exercise the right of lien on the remainder, unless such part delivery has been made under the
pretext to show an agreement to waive off the lien. Hence, in the given case, the seller, M/S
ABC Ltd. has the right of lien on the part of the goods that are still under their possession. This
can further be explained using the case of Grice vs Richardson. In this case, the seller had
delivered a part of the 3 parcels of tea comprised in the sale, and they had not been paid for the
part which had remained with them. They were allowed to keep it under their possession until
the payment for the same was made. Applying the same principle in the given situation, M/S
ABC Ltd. has the right to keep the remainder of the goods under their possession until M/S
XYZ Ltd. makes the required payment. (b) Under the provisions of the section 50, where the
goods have been delivered to a carrier or other bailee for the purpose of transmission to the
buyer, who has become insolvent, the seller may stop the goods as long as they are in transit.
In the given case, it is uncertain as to whether M/S XYZ Ltd. has become insolvent or not. If
the buyer is not insolvent, and has just obstructed the payment of instalments, then the goods
cannot be stopped in transit. However, if M/S XYZ Ltd. has become insolvent, and insolvency
is one of the reasons of their failure to make payment of the said instalments, then the seller,
M/S ABC Ltd. can stop the goods in transit before they reach the possession of the buyer.
However, if M/S ABC Ltd. fails to stop the transit of goods before they reach the possession
of the buyer, the seller then will no longer have the right of lien over such goods. This is one
of the methods to protect the unpaid seller against the risk of his goods going to the possession
of an insolvent entity. (c) Under the provisions of the section 54 it very well may be observed
that the sale is commonly not rescinded by a lien or stoppage in transit. Thus, under section
54(2) if the goods are of perishable nature, or where the unpaid seller who has exercised his
privilege of lien or stoppage in transit gives notice to the purchaser of his goal to resell, the
unpaid seller may, if the purchaser does not inside a reasonable timeframe address or delicate
the cost, resell the goods inside a reasonable timeframe and recuperate from the first purchaser
damages for any loss occasioned by his break of agreement, however the purchaser shall not
be qualified for any benefit that arises out of the resale. On the off chance that such a
notification is not given, the unpaid seller won't reserve the option to recuperate any damages
and the purchaser will be qualified for the profits arising out of the transaction. Thus, if M/S
ABC Ltd. serves a notification to the purchaser allotting a reasonable timeframe to make the
payment, and if the purchaser M/S XYZ Ltd. still fails to do as such, at that point the unpaid
seller can resale the goods and claim damages from M/S XYZ Ltd. for any loss that the unpaid
seller has caused through the transaction.