—
Agency.
196 Sect.
3.
Rights of
Agent against Principal.
Loss of right to remuneration.
completed (e) The question whether an act or omission of a principal which prevents remuneration from being earued by an agent is wrongful or not, so as to entitle the agent to damages, depends upon the terms of the contract between them (f) and the usages of the particular trade or business (g). .
416.
An
who
agent
qualification to enable
is
by law required
to possess a particular
him to act as such, is not entitled to any time when he rendered the services in respect
remuneration if at the of which the remuneration is claimed he was not so qualified (It) nor is an agent entitled to any remuneration in respect of transactions in the course of which he has been guilty of wilful misconduct {i) or breach of faith, whether his principal has been damnified thereby or not (/c), nor in respect of gaming or wagering transactions (Z), or transactions which were unauthorised by his principal and not subsequently ratified {m) or which were known by the agent to be unlawful (n), nor in respect of any services which were rendered abortive by reason of his negligence or other breach of duty (o)
,
Sub-Sect. Extent right.
of
3.
Reimburseraent and Indemnity by Principal.
417. The relation of principal and agent raises by implication a contract on the part of the principal to reimburse the agent in respect of all expenses, and to indemnify him against all liabilities, incurred in the reasonable performance of the agency {p), provided that such implication is not excluded by the express terms of the contract between them (q), and provided that such expenses and liabilities are in fact occasioned by his employment (7')(e)
Cab.
FrichettY. Badger (1856), El. 336.
1
C. B. (n.
s.)
296; Roberts
v.
Barnard
(1884), 1
&
Simpson v. Lamb (1856), 17 C. B. 603 and contrast Turner v. OoJdsmith, ( f) [1891] 1 Q. B. 544, and Brace v. Cahler, [1895] 2 Q. B. 253, with Rhodes v. Forwood (1876), 1 App. Gas. 256, and Phillips v. Alhambra Palace Co., [1901] 1 K. B. 59. See also Chinnock v. Sainsbury (1860), 30 L. J. (CH.) 409; Green y. Lucas (1875), 33 L. T. 584. Broad v. Thomas (1830), 7 Bing. 99. [g) Read v. Rann (1830), 10 B. & C. 438 (h) PalJc Y. Force (1848), 12 Q. B. 666; Cope v. Rowlands (1836), 2 M. & W. 149. (?) Andreius v. Ramsay & Co., [1903] 2 K. B. 635 Price v. Metropolitan Home Investment and Agency Co., Ltd. (1907), 23 T. L. R. 630 compare The Macleod (1880), 5 P. D. 254. But he is entitled to his remuneration in other transactions where he has acted properly {FLippisley y. Knee Brothers, [1905] IK. B. 1 Nitedals Taendstihfabrich v. Bruster (1906), 75 L. J. (CH.) 798).
{h)
Sakmians
v.
&
Pender (1865), 3 H.
Gaming
C. 639.
Act, 1892 (55 Yict. c. 9), s. 1 see title Gaming and Wagering. [m] Marsh v. Jelf (1862), 3 F. & F. 234 Campanari v. Woodburn{18oi), 15 0. B. 400. {n) Stackpole v. Farle (1761), 2 Wils. (k. b.) 133; Josephs v. Pebrer (1825)_, 3 B. & C. 639 and see the Stamp Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 39), s. 53 (3), which requires the broker to stamp the contract note before he can claim his commission. Otherwise, if the agent was unaware of the illegality {Haines v. BusJc (/)
(1814), 5 Taunt. 521).
Bracey v. Carter (1840), 12 A. &E. 289; FlamondY. Holiday (1824), 1 0. &P. 384. [p) Adamson y. Jarvis (1827), 4 Bing. 66; Frixione v. Tagliaferro (1856), 10 Moo. P. C. C. 175 including those arising out of a premature revocation of his authority ( JFar?ow; v. Harrison (1858),, 1 E. & E. 295, per Martin, B., at p. 317). [q) As in the case of a del credere agent [Morris v. Cleasby (1816), 4 M. & S. 566). But a del credere agent is entitled to indemnity against losses outside the scope of the del credere commission [Hooper v. Treffrey (1847), 1 Exch. 17). [r) Compare Halbronn v. Fnternational Horse Agency and Exchange, Ltd., [1903] 1 B. 270. (o)
Benew
v.
Daverell (1813), 3
373; BaltonY. Lriuin (1830), 4 C.
K
Camp. 451
&P.
