—
Agency.
186 Sect.
2.
Rights of Principal
against Agent.
Negotiation of contract.
Dilatoriness.
such special usages as may be binding on the principal (6). But the agent is not responsible for failure to go beyond his reasonable duty, even though a loss is occasioned thereby, which might have been avoided by extra care, skill, or diligence (c). ISIor does he incur liability in respect of matters which are not fairly within the scope of his employment (d). In the negotiation of a contract he must take all reasonable precautions that may be requisite for the protection of his principal (e). Any contract made by him must be in accordance with his instructions (/) or with usage {g), and must truly represent the agreement of the parties (h). Its form must be such that it is capable of being enforced by the principal (i). If the contract be once completed, the agent cannot rescind it [k) nor vary its terms (I) unless he is expressly authorised to do so. The agent must not be guilty of unreasonable delay in carrying out his instructions (m), or in communicating to his principal any material information (n). Sub.-Sect.
Duty
to keep
accounts.
399.
3.
It is
As
to
Accounts and Moneys received hy the Agent on the FrincipaVs hehalf.
the duty of an agent
(o)
keep accurate accounts
to
of
his transactions {p), and to be prepared at all times to produce them to his principal (g). Further, all books and documents relating to the principal's business must on demand be produced to the principal, or to some person named by him (r), provided that
such person is not one against grounds of objection (s).
whom
the agent
may have
reasonable
Mallough v. Barher (1815), 4 (&) Russell V. Hanhey (1794), 6 Term Eep. 12 Camp. 150; Papey. Westacott, [1894] 1 Q. B. 272, 279; Farrer y. Lacy (1885), 31 Ch. D. 42 Wilts and Dorset Bank v. Cook (1889), 5 T. L. E. 703 Felham V. mider (1841), 1 Y. & C. Ch. 3.
Commoniuealth Portland Cement Co. v. Weher, [1905] A. C. 66. ZwilchenhartY. Alexander (1860), IB. & S. 234 Jenkins y. Betham (1855), 15 C. B. 168 and see Lee v. Wcdker (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 121 Lamert v. Eeath (1846), 15 M. & W. 486; Pappa v. Pose (1872), L. E. 7 C. P. 32, affirmed, ibid. 525. (e) Heijs V. Tindall (1861), 1 B. & S. 296 Smith v. Barton (1866), 15 L. T. 294; Solomon v. Barker (1862), 2 P. & P. 726. (/) Park V. Hammond (1816), 6 Taunt. 495. Mallough v. Barher, supra, (_(/) (c)
(d)
(h)
Stumor eY. Br een (1886), 12 App. Cas. 698. McManus v. Fortescue^ [1907] 2 K. B. 1 Rainhoiu v.
ILoiokins, [1904] 2 K. B. 322 Scott v. Godfrey, [1901] 2 B. 726 May v. Angeli (1898), ] 4 T. L. E. 551 Neil son v. James (1882), 9Q.B.D. 546. A broker must make tlie contract binding on both parties, Gra7it v. Fletcher (1826), 5 B. & C. 436. (k) Xenos v. Wickham (1866), L. E. 2 L. 296 Thomas v. Lewis (1878), 4 Ex. D. 18; Nelson v. Aldridge (1818), 2 Stark, 435. {I) Hihbert v. Baijley (1860), 2 P. & P. 48. (m) TurpinY. Bilton (1843), 5 Man. & Gr. 455. [n) ProudfootY. Montefiore (1867), L. E. 2 Q. B. 511. (o) The rule does not apply where the agency is only to receive moneys in respect of separate transactions known to the principal in detail at the time {Re Lee, Ex parte Neville (1868), 4 Ch. App. 43). {p) Gray v. Haig (1855), 20 Beav. 219; ChedworthY. Edwards (1802), 8 Ves. 47 White v. Lady Lincoln (1803), 8 Yes. 363. [q) Pearse v. Green (1819), 1 Jac. & W. 135. (r) Bevan v. Wehh, [1901] 2 Ch. 59. (s) Badswell v. Jacobs (1887), 34 Ch. D. 278. (*)
K
