—— Relations between Principal and Third Persons.
Part IX.
He may bribe (s), the principal has two courses open to him (t). repudiate the contract and get it set aside {a), or he may affirm it and obtain such reHef as the Court may think right to give him {h). It is immaterial to inquire whether or not the agent was in fact influenced by such payment or promise of payment to disregard his duty towards his principal (c). The rule extends to cases where the payment or promise was not made directly with reference to the particular contract, but generally with a view of influencing the agent in his dealings with the other contracting party (d).
217 ^'^ct. 7.
Corruption of Agent.
458. Where the principal elects to affirm the contract, or does not Where prindiscover the corruption of his agent until it is too late to rescind cipai does not it (e), he may recover from the person who has paid or promised contract, the bribe, jointly or severally with the agent (/), damages for any loss which he has sustained by reason of entering into the The measure of damages is prima facie the amount contract {g). of the bribe, without any deduction in respect of such portion of the bribe as may have already been recovered from the agent (h). The person giving or promising any bribe to an agent is also liable to criminal
Sect. 8.
proceedings
(i).
Criminal Liability of Principal for Acts or Defaults of Agent.
459. No act or default on the part of an agent im^DOses, as a General general rule, any criminal liability on the principal in respect will apparently be a bribe {Grant v. Gold Exploration Syndicate, [1900] 1 Q. B. 233, per Yaughan Williams, L.J., at p. 254), but not if be does not discover it till after payment {ihid., per Collins, L.J., at p. 247). (s) See p. 189, ante. {t) Panar)ia Telegraph Oo. v. India Rubber Telegraph Works Go. (1875), 10 Oh. App. 515, per James, L.J., at p. 526. (a) As in ShipwayY. Broadwood, [1899] 1 Q. B. 869; Panama Telegraph Go.y.
India Rubber Telegraph Works Go., supra ; Smith y. Sorby (1875), 3 Q. B. D. 552 Bartram v. Lloyd (1904), 90 L. T. 357. (b) As in Sal/ord Gorporation v. Lever, [1891] 1 Q,. B. 168 Grant v. Gold Exploration Syndicate, supra. (c) Shipway v. Broadivood, supra; Hovenden v. Millhqf (1900), 83 L. T. 41; and see Harrington v. Victoria Graving Bock Go. (1878], 3 Q. B. D, 549, per Field, J., at p. 552. But see Rowland v. Ghapman (1901), 17 T. L. E. 669, where the agent's duty and interest were not in conflict. {d) Smith Y. Sorby, supra. (e) He may lose the right to rescind by acquiescing in the receipt of the bribe by his agent, provided that there is full disclosure [Bartram v. Lloyd, supra). (f) As to the position of the a^ent, see p. 191, ante. (g) The action may be framed either for money had and received {Hovenden v. Millhoff, supra), where the amount of damages is a liquidated sum, or for damages for deceit {Grant v. Gold Exploration Syndicate, supra, per A. L. Smith, L.J., at p. 245; see also Salford Gorporation v. Lever, supra). The giver of the bribe cannot escape liability on the ground that he thought the agent would disclose its receipt to his principal {Panama Telegraph Go. v. India Rubber Telegraph Works Co., supra; Grant y. Gold Exploration Syndicate, supra). {h) Salford Gorporation v. Lever, supra. But an unconditional release of the agent operates as a release to the third person {ibid., at p. 178). (?) He may be indicted for conspiracy {R. v. Be Kromme (1892), 66 L. T. 301), or may be proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1906 (6
_
Edw.
7, c. 34).
See, further, title
Criminal
Law and
Peocedure.
rule,
