Lisbon for the young nobility. He died in 1769. His history of the university was published in 1757, under the name Fasti Gymnasii Patavini. In 1808 a volume containing nine of his Epistles, never before published, was issued at Padua.
See J. E. Sandys, Hist. Class. Schol. ii. (1908).
FACE (from Lat. facies, derived either from facere, to make, or from a root fa-, meaning “appear”; cf. Gr. φαίνειν), a word whose various meanings of surface, front, expression of countenance, look or appearance, are adaptations of the application of the word to the external part of the front portion of the head, usually taken to extend from the top of the forehead to the point of the chin, and from ear to ear (see Anatomy: Superficial and Artistic; and Physiognomy).
FACTION (through the French, from Lat. factio, a company
of persons combined for action, facere, to do; from the other
French derivative façon comes “fashion”), a term, used especially
with an opprobrious meaning, for a body of partisans who
put their party aims and interests above those of the state or
public, and employ unscrupulous or questionable means; it is
thus a common term of reciprocal abuse between parties. In the
history of the Roman and Later Roman empires the factions
(factiones) of the circus and hippodrome, at Rome and Constantinople,
played a prominent part in politics. The factiones were
properly the four companies into which the charioteers were
divided, and distinguished by the colours they wore. Originally
at Rome there were only two, white (albata) and red (russata),
when each race was open to two chariots only; on the increase
to four, the green (prasina) and blue (veneta) were added. At
Constantinople the last two absorbed the red and white factions.
For a brilliant description of the factions at Constantinople under Justinian, and the part they played in the celebrated Nika riot in January 532, see Gibbon’s Decline and Fall, ch. xl.; and J. B. Bury’s Appendix 10 in vol. iv. of his edition (1898), for a discussion of the relationship between the factiones and the demes of Constantinople.
FACTOR (from Lat. facere, to make or do), strictly “one who
makes”; thus in ordinary parlance, anything which goes to the
composition of anything else is termed one of its “factors,”
and in mathematics the term is used of those quantities which,
when multiplied together, produce a given product. In a special
sense, however—and that to which this article is devoted—“factor”
is the name given to a mercantile agent (of the class
known as “general agents”) employed to buy or sell goods
for a commission. When employed to sell, the possession of the
goods is entrusted to him by his principal, and when employed
to buy it is his duty to obtain possession of the goods and to
consign them to his principal. In this he differs from a broker
(q.v.), who has not such possession, and it is this distinguishing
characteristic which gave rise in England to the series of statutes
known as the Factors Acts. By these acts, consolidated and
extended by the act of 1889, third parties buying or taking
pledges from factors are protected as if the factor were in reality
owner; but these enactments have in no way affected the
contractual relations between the factor and his employer,
and it will be convenient to define them before discussing the
position of third parties as affected by the act.
I. Factor and Principal
A factor is appointed or dismissed in the same way as any other agent. He may be employed for a single transaction or to transact all his principal’s business of a certain class during a limited period or till such time as his authority may be determined. A factor’s duty is to sell or buy as directed; to carry out with care, skill and good faith any instructions he may receive; to receive or make payment; to keep accounts, and to hand over to his principal the balance standing to his principal’s credit, without any deduction save for commission and expenses. All express instructions he must carry out to the full, provided they do not involve fraud or illegality. On any point not covered by his express instructions he must follow the usual practice of his particular business, if not inconsistent with his instructions or his position as factor. Many usages of businesses in which factors are employed have been proved in court, and may now be regarded as legally established. For instance, he may, unless otherwise directed, sell in his own name, give warranties as to goods sold by him, sell by sample (in most businesses), give such credit as is usual in his business, receive payment in cash or as customary; and give receipts in full discharge, sell by indorsement of bills of lading; and insure the goods. It is his duty to clear the goods at the customs, take charge of them and keep them safely, give such notices to his principal and others as may be required, and if necessary take legal proceedings for the protection of the goods. On the other hand, he has not authority to delegate his employment, or to barter; and as between himself and his principal he has no right to pledge the goods, although as between the principal and the pledgee, an unauthorized pledge made by the factor may by virtue of the Factors Act 1889 be binding upon the principal. It is, moreover, inconsistent with his employment as agent that he should buy or sell on his own account from or to his principal. A factor has no right to follow any usage which is inconsistent with the ordinary duties and authority of a factor unless his principal has expressly or impliedly given his consent.
On the due performance of his duties the factor is entitled to his commission, which is usually a percentage on the value of the goods sold or bought by him on account of his principal, regulated in amount by, the usages of each business. Sometimes the factor makes himself personally responsible for the solvency of the persons with whom he deals, in order that his principal may avoid the risk entailed by the usual trade credit. In such a case the factor is said to be employed on del credere terms, and is entitled to a higher rate of commission, usually 212% extra. Such an arrangement is not a contract of guarantee within the Statute of Frauds, and therefore need not be in writing. Besides his remuneration, the factor is entitled to be reimbursed by his principal for any expenses, and to be indemnified against any liabilities which he may have properly incurred in the execution of his principal’s instructions. For the purpose of enforcing his rights a factor has, without legal proceedings, two remedies. Firstly, by virtue of his general lien (q.v.) he may hold any of his principal’s goods which come to his hands as security for the payment to him of any commission, out-of-pocket expenses, or even general balance of account in his favour. Although he cannot sell the goods, he may refuse to give them up until he is paid. Secondly, where he has consigned goods to his principal but not been paid, he may “stop in transit” subject to the same rules of law as an ordinary vendor; that is to say, he must exercise his right before the transit ends; and his right may be defeated by his principal transferring the document of title to the goods to some third person, who takes it in good faith and for valuable consideration (Factors Act 1889, section 10). If the factor does not carry out his principal’s instructions, or carries them out so negligently or unskilfully that his principal gets no benefit thereby, the factor loses his commission and his right to reimbursement and indemnity. If by such failure or negligence the principal suffers any loss, the latter may recover it as damages. So too if the factor fails to render proper accounts his principal may by proper legal proceedings obtain an account and payment of what is found due; and threatened breaches of duty may be summarily stopped by an injunction. Criminal acts by the factor in relation to his principal’s goods are dealt with by section 78 of the Larceny Act 1860.
II. Principal and Third Party
(a) At Common Law.—The actual authority of a factor is defined by the same limits as his duty, the nature of which has been just described; i.e. firstly, by his principal’s express instructions; secondly, by the rules of law and usages of trade, in view of which those instructions were expressed. But his power to bind his principal as regards third parties is often wider than his actual authority; for it would not be reasonable that third parties should be prejudiced by secret instructions, given in derogation of the authority ordinarily conferred by the custom of trade; and, as regards them, the factor is said to have “apparent” or “ostensible” authority, or to be held out as having
