Agency.
222 Sect.
1.
Liabilities of
Agent.
Where no on warranty. liability
Measure damages
of for breach of
warranty.
that he has in fact authority from such principal to do the act (t) or make the contract (a) in question. If, therefore, he has no such
authority (Z>), he is liable to be sued for breach of warranty of authority by any third person who was induced by his conduct in purporting to act as agent to believe that he had authority to do the act or make the contract, and who, by acting upon such belief, has suffered loss in consequence of the absence of authority (c). The agent's belief in the existence of his authority is immaterial (d). But he is not liable if at the time of doing the act or making the contract he expressly disclaims any present authority (e), or if the other part}^ knows that he has no authority (/), or is fully acquainted with the facts from which the inference of authority is drawn (g).
467. The measure of damages for a breach of warranty of authority is the loss actually sustained by the third person as the natural and probable consequence of the non-existence of the authority (h). In the case of a contract made without authority and repudiated by the principal, the loss will be the amount that could have been recovered from the principal in an action for breach of the contract if it had in fact been made with his authority (i), together gland, [1903] A. C. 114; Cherry y. Colonial Bank (t) StarJa'e v. Bank of of Australasia (1869), 38 L. j. (p. c.) 49; Richardson v. Williamson (1871), L. E. Weeks v. Propert (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 427. 6 Q. B. 276 Simons v. Patchett {1851) 7 E. & B. (a) CollenY. Wright {1851) 8 E. & B. 647 568; Pe National Coffee Palace Co., Ex parte Panmure (1883), 24 Ch. D. 367; Hughes v. Graeme (1864), 33 Anderson v. Croall (1904), 6 F. (Ct. of Sess.) 153 L. J. (q. b.) 335. {h) But he is not liable for exceeding his real authority, if his apparent authority would be sufficient to bind his principal {Painhow v. Hoiokins, [1904] 2 K. B. 322). If the principal disputes the authority in an action brought by the third person, the agent may be joined as defendant, and relief claimed against him in the alternative {Honduras Rail. Co. v. Lefevre (1877), 2 Ex. D. 301 and Bennetts v. Mcllwraith, [1896] 2 see Masseij v. He2jnes (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 330 Q. B.464). (c) See cases cited in th.e notes to this sub-section passim and the proposition stated by Lord Haxsbuky, L.C., in Salvesen v. Rederi Aktieholaget Nordstjernan^ [1905] A. C. 302, at p. 309. {d) Starh'e v. Bank of England, supra ; Firhank v. Humphreys (1886), 18> Q. B. D. 54; Chapleo v. Brunswick Building Society (1881), 6 Q. B. D. If the agent is aware of the absence of authority, he may be suedi 696. either for breach of warranty of authority or for deceit {Polhill v. Walter
,
,
(1832), 3 (e)
B.
&
Ad.
114).
Hallot V. Lens, [1901]
1
Oh. 344.
(/) n^d.
Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Co., (g) Smout V. Ilhery (1842), 10 M. & W. 1 [1900] 1 Ch. 43; McManus v. Fortescue (1907), 23 T. L. E. 292; and contrast Lilly V. Smales, [1892] 1 Q. B. 456, with Suart v. Haigh (1893), 9 T. L. E. 488; and compare West London Bank v. Kitson (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 360. When the evidence of the agency is an inference of law, the agent is not liable, provided that the facts are equally within the knowledge of both {Eaglesfield v. Londonderry Jones v. Hope (1880), 3 T. L. E. 247; Rashdall v. Ford (1878), 38 L. T. 303 (1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 750). (A) Starkie v. Bank of England, supra ; Firhank v. Humphreys, siqjra ; Richardson y. Williamson, supra; Meek v. Wendt {1888), 21 Q. B. D. 126; Huhhart y.. Phillips (1845), 2 D. & L. 707 ; Salvesen v. Rederi Aktieholaget Nordstjernan, supra; and see Salton v. New Beeston Cycle Co., supra. But the contract must {i) Simons v. Patchett, supra ; Suart v. Haigh, supra. not have been one which would have been unenforceable against the principal owing to the absence of some formality {Warr v. Jones (1876), 24 W. E. 695 and see Painhow v. Howkins, supra).
- ,
