1.

1 Legal provisions related to agency in Sri Lanka

When it comes to legal provision which are related to agency in Sri Lanka, the law which is
governing agency in Sri Lanka is the law applicable in England. Under the section 3 of the civil law
ordinance No. 5 of 1852, it has stated that “in all questions or issues which have to be decided in Sri
Lanka with respect to the law of principal and agent, the law to be administered shall be the same as
would be administered in England like the following case law”: Wright Vs. People’s Bank (1985)
Sri Lanka reports under the pages 292 that, court of appeal clearly held that the law applicable for
the principal and agent is the English law as introduced by section 3 of the civil law ordinance.

Furthermore, legal provision related to agency in Sri Lanka can be found in related case laws. In a
incident of a transported of goods from Colombo to Batticaloa finds that the lorry in which he is
transporting the goods was damaged and can not serve the purpose. Also, he was unable to find
another transportation method. In the meantime, goods in the lorry were of a perishable nature and
the transported becomes an agent of necessity for the owner of the goods and is entitled to sell the
goods at the best possible price if the transporter cannot locate the owner of vegetable to get
instructions about what he should do. In England a similar decision was taken by the English court
in the case of Sims and Company Vs. Midland railway company (1913) case. On the other hand, in
Prager. Vs. Blatspeil Stamp and Heacock Ltd. (1924) case, which is agent sold fur skins which
belongs to his principal without the permission, as fur skins were not perishable, the sale was not
justified as the previous one in the basis of agency of necessity because agent could have kept them
until the instruction of the principal.

Considering the agency by ratification, under the case law of Keigley Maxted and company Vs.
Durant (1901), agent’s act which is ratified need to be done expressly on the behalf of principal. In
this case if the agent is not enclosed that he is acting for another, the act cannot be later ratified by
the principal. Also, when it comes to agency by Estoppel in the case of Rama Corporation Vs.
Proved Tin and General Investments Ltd. (1952) English court of appeal have mentioned that three
main requirements for agency by Estoppel. Such as, a representation by a principal, a reliance by a
third party on that representation and an alteration of the third party’s position resulting from such
representation. Considering the representation, in the case of Lloyd Vs. Smith and company (1912),
the managing clerk in a solicitor’s office who had the authority to deal with the clients who are
coming to get the legal work done through the solicitor. In this case clerk was cheated on a client
and had abused the authority given to him, the house if lords held that his employer who is the
solicitor was estopped from denying the agent’s authority. As a result, solicitor was made liable for
the loss suffered by the client.
Finally, as described in the given scenarios and all basically legal provisions related to the agency in
Sri Lanka is the governing law in the England.