— Part YIII.
Relations between Principal and Agent.
should actually complete the transaction hut he must it was hrought ahout as the direct result of his intervenIt is not sufficient to show that it would not have been tion (n). entered into but for his services, if it resulted therefrom only as a It therefore follows that where casual or remote consequence {o). several agents are concerned in negotiating a transaction between the principal and a particular third party the agent entitled to remuneration is not necessarily the agent who first introduces the business to him, but the agent who is the effective cause of the transaction being completed {p). An agent is not entitled to receive any remuneration in respect of a transaction resulting from the agency which differs substantially from that which he was employed to procure (q). No remuneration is, as a rule, payable upon transactions between the principal and third persons introduced to him by the agent arising after the termination of the employment (r), whether such transactions are due to the agent's introduction (s) or not (t). But remuneration may be payable in respect of such further transactions if they are in fact part of a transaction in which the agent was employed (a), or if there was an express contract to that effect and in the latter case it will be payable even though the agent was dismissed (h), and may be so though he was not the effective cause apjent
show that
195 Sect.
3.
Rights of
Agent against Pn^ncipal.
^nd must
not
^cope'oT^
employment Nor after termination of
employment,
of the transaction (c).
415. If an agent is prevented from earning his remuneration by Agent wrongsome wrongful act or default on the part of the principal, he is entitled ^ented^by to recover from the latter as damages the actual loss sustained by principal him(f/). Where the agent has done everything to entitle him to from earning ^^^^^^^^tion. receive his remuneration, the measure of damages is the full amount of remuneration which he would have received, if the transaction in respect of which it was to be payable had been (w) Mansell v. Clements (1874), L. E. 9 C. P. 139 Green v. Bartlett (1863), 14 C. B. (N. s.) 681. {n) Willdnson v. Martin (1837), 8 C. & P. 1 ; Burton v. Hughes (1885), 1 T. L. K. 207 ; and cases in preceding note. (o) Trile V. Taylor (1876), 1 C. P. D. 505; Lumley v. Nicholson (1886), 34 W. E. 716; Antrobus v. Wickens (1865), 4 P. & P. 291 ; Millar Son & Go. v.
Radford (1903), 19 T. L. E. 575. Barrett (1889), 6 T. L. E. 30; Barnett v. Brown & Co. (1890), 6 Millar Son & Go. v. Radford, swpra. But the principal cannot interplead if several agents claim commission upon the same transaction {Greatorex y. Shackle, [1895] 2 Q. B. 249). Barnett v. Isaacson (1888), 4 T. L. E. ((i) Toulmin v. Millar (1887), 58 L. T. 96 (
p)
Taplin
T. L. E. 463
V.
645.
Trihe v. Taijlor, supra. Barrett v. Gilmour & Co. (1901), 6 Com. Cas. 72 ; Hilton v. Helliiuell, [1894] 2 Ir. E. 94 Nayler v. Yearsley (1860), 2 P. & P. 41. {t) Boyd Y. Tovil Paper Co., Ltd. (1888), 4 T. L. E. 332. (a) Wilkinson v. Martin, supra. [h] Salomony. Brownfield (1896), 12 T. L. E. 239; Bilbeev. Hasse & Co. (1889), 5 T. L. E. 677. (r) (s)
Robey v. Arnold (1897), 14 T. L. E. 39. {d) Prickett v. Badger (1856), 1 C. B. (n. s.)
(c)
Where the agent has only 296. done part of the work he was employed to do, he recovers on a quantum 7neruit {Inchbald V. Western Neilgherry Coffee Co. (1864), 17 C. B. (n. S.) 733), unless tjiere an express contract to meet the case {Re London and Scottish Bank, Ex parte Logan (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 149).
is
o 2
