— VL
Part
-Delegation.
171
becomes jointly
principal of the acts of the sub-agent, the latter liable with the agent to the principal (r)
^^ct.
2.
Implied The sanction of the delegation may be evident from the conduct Authority to de lega te, of the parties, as where on the sale of a ship in Japan through a sub-agent it was shown that the principal had acquiesced in his .
employment
(s).
371. Where unforeseen circumstances arise, the necessity of Cases of The necessity must ^i^ergency. the case may make delegation imperative (s). be urgent {t}, or the delegation be absolutely essential from the requirements of the case, and the employment of the sub-agent must be with discretion. The agent will be liable even in cases of necessity if he acts with indiscretion in the use of a sub-agent, or intrusts the sub-agent, when employed, with unnecessary power or opportunity {u).
372. The employment by trustees of bankers and solicitors for the receipt of moneys and the giving of a discharge is now permitted by statute but the liability of the trustee for the acts of these and other subordinate agents will not be escaped if he leaves trust funds longer in their hands than is reasonably necessary, or does not take all reasonable precautions (a).
Trustees,
Sect.
Position of Suh-agent,
8.
373. There is as a general rule no privity of contract between the and a sub-agent, the sub-agent being liable only to his employer, the agent {h). The exception is where the principal was a party to the appointment of the sub-agent, or has subsequently adopted his acts, and it was the intention of the parties that privity of contract should be established between them (c). There may, therefore, be said to be three classes of sub-agents (1) those employed without the authority, express or implied, of
Privity
principal
principal, by whose acts the principal is not bound (^i^) those employed with the express or implied authority of the principal, but between whom and the principal there is no privity of contract; (3) those employed with the principal's authority, between whom and the principal there is privity of contract.
the
(2)
{r)
Keay
(1885),
1
v.
Ftnwick (1876),
1
C. P.
D. 745
Dew
v.
Metropolitan Rail. Co.
T. L. E. 358.
De Bussche
v. Alt (1878), 8 Ch. D. 286. Owilliam v. Twist {l^^b), 11 T. L. E. 415. The driver and conductor of an omnibus have no implied authority to hand over the driving to another person. And see Harris v. Fiat Motors, Ltd. (1906), 22 T. L. E. 556. (w) Speight v. Oaunt (1883), 9 App. Gas. 1 JoUony. Palmer, [1893] 1 Oh. 71. (a) Trustee Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Yict. c. 53), s. 17, and see Rowland v. Witherden (1851), 3 Mac. & G. 568; BostocJii v. Floyer (1865), 35 Beav. 603; Speight v. Gaunt (1883), 9 App. Gas. 1. (b) Mackersy v. Ramsays, Bonars & Co. (1843), 9 Gl. & F. 818 Schmaling V. Thomlinson (1815), 6 Taunt. 147 A.-G. v. Earl of Chesterfield (1854), 18 Beav. 596; New Zealand and Australian Land Co. v. Watson (1881), 7 Q,. B. D. 374 Dunlop v. De Murrieta & Co. (1886), 3 T. L. E. 166 Lockwood v. Abdy (1845), 14 Sim. 437 Mo7itagu v. Forwood, [1893] 2 Q. B. 350; Finto v. Santos (1814), 1 Marsh. 132. (s) {t)
De Bussche
v. Alt, supra. Blore v. Sutton (1817), 3 Mer. 237; 169; Dunlop v. De Murrieta & Co., supra. (c)
(d)
Wray
v.
Kemp
(1884), 26 Gh.
D.
^^J^^^^^^j
sub^agent^^
Classes of ^^^-^g^'^^s-
