— —
— 228
Agency.
Part XI.
— Duration
and Termination of
Agency. [Sect.
How
Sect.
1.
In General. ter-
minated.
In General.
1.
475. Agency may be terminated either (1) by the act of the parties, or (2) by operation of law. The act of the parties may be either a revocation by the principal or a renunciation
by the agent.
—
The law terminates the agency (1) on the expiration time, if any, agreed upon (2) on complete performance
of the of the
undertaking (3) on destruction of the subject-matter or the happening of an event rendering the continuance of the agency unlawful ; or (4) where either party becomes incapable of continuing the contract by reason of death, bankruptcy, or unsoundness of mind. But the termination of agency by these various events is subject to qualifications either defined by law, or due to the facts of the
particular case.
Sect. Authority-
coupled with interest irrevocable.
2.
Irrevocable Authority.
476. The authority of an agent is irrevocable under the following circumstances (1) Where the agency is created by deed, or for valuable consideration, and the authority is given to effectuate a security or Thus, if an agreement is to secure the interest of the agent (^). entered into on a sufficient consideration whereby an authority is given for the purpose of securing some benefit to the donee of the authority, such an authority is irrevocable, on the ground that it is coupled with an interest (a). So an authority to sell in consideration of forbearance to sue for previous advances {b), an authority to apply for shares to be allotted on an underwriting agreement, a commission being paid for the underwriting (c), and an authority to receive rents until the principal and interest of a loan have been paid off {d) or to receive money from a third party in payment of a debt (e), have been held irrevocable. On the other hand, an authority is not irrevocable merely because the agent has a special property in or a lien upon goods to which the authority relates,
(t) What is an authority coupled with an interest so as to be irrevocable was discussed in Smart v. Bandars (1848), 5 0. B. 895. See also Walsh v. Whifcomh (a) Smart v. Sandars, supra, per WiLixE, C.J. (1797), 2 Esp. 565 Gaussen v. Morton (1830), 10 B. & 0. 731 De Comas v. Prost (1865), 3 Moo. P. C. C. (n. s.) 158; Kiddill v. Farnell (1857), 3 Sm, & G. 428.
But
see Watson v.
(b)
King
(1815),
4 Camp, 272.
Raleigh v. Atkinson (1840), 6
Re Hannan's compare Re Consort (c)
(d)
Abbott Y.
M. & W.
670.
CarmichaeVs Case, [1896] 2 Ch. 643; but etc. Mines, Stark's Case (1896), 66 L. J. (CH.) 122. Whitworth v. Gaugain (1844), Stratton (1846), 9 Ir. Eq. Eep. 233 etc.
Mining
Co.,
3 Hare, 416: (e) Alley v. Hotson (1815), 4
Camp. 325. See also Re Rose, Ex parte Hasluck and Garrard (1894), 1 Mans. 218; Gurnell v. Gardner (1863), 4 Giff. 626; Lepard v. Vernon (1813), 2 Y. & B. 51 and Re BuUfontein Sun Diamond Mine, Ex parte Cox Hughes and Norman (1897), 75 L. T. 669.
