—— Relations between Principal and Agent.
Part VIII. Sect.
2.
Bights of Principal against Agent (u). Sub-Sect. 1.— General Bights.
183 Sect.
2.
Piinc^a/
against 393. The first duty of an agent is to carry out the business he -A^ent. has undertaken {a), or to inform his principal promptly if it be {h) impossible to do so Agent to If he has received definite instructions from his principal as to perform the manner in which the business is to be carried out, he must undertaken, follow them strictly (c), provided that they be lawful {d) and if he obedience to does so, he is not liable to his principal, because the consequences instructions, differ from those which the principal had anticipated (e). But he has no discretion to disregard them, even though he acts in good .
faith in the interests of his principal (/ ). Where no definite instructions have been given to the agent, or Exercise of
where his instructions leave him a discretion, the agent must be guided by the honest exercise of his own judgment and the interests If his instructions leave two alternative of his principal (g). courses open to him, he incurs no liability merely because he chooses that course which proves in the event less favourable to his principal (/<) Where he is a professional agent, he must follow
agent's dis-
.
the ordinary course of business able to the particular case (k).
(t),
and any
special usages applic-
394. As a general rule, an agent must himself carry out the business intrusted to him, and is liable for a breach of duty if he delegates the performance of this duty to another (I) But delegation .
This section deals only with the general principles governing the duties and agents. Por the special features of the agency of auctioneers, bankers, insurance brokers, married women, shipmasters, solicitors, and stockbrokers, see {ii)
liabilities of
titles
Auction AND AucTioisrEEiis, Bankees and Banking, Husband and Wife,
Insurance, Shipping and Navigation, Solicitors, and Stock Exchange. (a) Tarpin v. Bilton (1843), 5 Man. & G. 455. If the business is unlawful the agent incurs no liability through his failure to carry it out ( Webster v. De Tastet and, similarly, where the agency is gratuitous {Balfe (1797), 7 Term Eep. 157)
West (1853), 13 C. B. 466). (h) Cassahoglou v. Gihb (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 797 ; Callander v. Oelrichs (1838), 6 Bing. (N. c.) 58. (c) Lilleij V. DouUedaii (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 510 ; Smith y. Lascelles (1788), 2 Term Eep. 187; Catlin v. Bell (1815), 4 Camp. 183; Barber v. Taijlor (1839), 5 M. & W. 527; Dufresne v. Hutchinson (1810), 3 Taunt. 117. {d) Bexwell v. Christie (1776), Cowp. 395. (e) Overend and Ourney Co. v. Gibh (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 480; and see Commomuealth Portland Cement Co. v. Weber, [1905] A. 0. 66. (/) Bertram v. God/ray (1830), 1 Knapp, 381; Fray v. Voules (1859), 1 E. & E. 839, where a solicitor compromised an action on the advice of counsel against the express instructions of his client and contrast Chown v. Parrott (1863), 14 C. B. (n. s.) 74, where the client had given no express instructions. ((/) Cidlerne v. London and Suburban General Permanent Building Society (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 485, per Lindley, L.J., at p. 487 Chown v. Parrott, supra. And see Lagunas Nitrate Co. v. Lagunas Syndicate, [1899] 2 Oh. 392. (A) Comber v. Anderson (1808), 1 Camp. 523; Moore v. Mourgue (1776), Cowp. 479 Ireland v. Livingston (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 395, 416. Russell V. Hanley (1794), 6 Term Eep. 12; Mallough v. Barber (1815), 4 (?:) Camp. 150 Pape v. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272, 279. {k) Farrer v. Lacy (1 885), 31 Ch. D. 42 Solomon v. Barker (1862), 2 F. & F. 726. (/) Catlin V. Bell, (1815) 4 Camp. 183 Cook v. Ward (1877), 2 C. P. D. 255; Henderson v. Barneiuall (1827), 1 Y. & J. 387. V.
Delegation,
