— Agency.
232
Sect. 3. 486. An agent may at any time before completion of the agency Termination renounce his authority, but subject to any claim of his principal for by Act damages for breach of the contract of agency {p).
of Parties.
Sect.
Kenunciaiion of authority.
By
effluxion of time.
4.
Termination by Ojperation of Law.
487. Termination by operation of law may take place by effluxion time which may be fixed for the continuance of the agency by the parties or by custom or usage of the particular trade or of the
business (g). It is not necessary that the time for the continuance of the agency should be expressly stated. It may be presumed from the nature of the authority, as when a power of attorney recited the fact that the donor was about to go abroad it was held to be impliedly revoked on his return home (r).
By performance or impossibility of
continuance.
Performance.
Termination of principal's business.
488. The agency may also be terminated by the conclusion of the agency by performance (s) or by destruction of the subjectmatter or determination of the business where there is no express or implied undertaking to continue it(i), or by the happening of an event rendering its continuance unlawful {a). On completion of the agency by performance the agent is functus officio, and has no further authority to bind the principal (Z>). With regard to the determination of the principal's business, where an agency has been created for a fixed time, the question whether the agent is entitled to claim damages as for wrongful revocation of the agency depends upon whether there was any obligation, express or implied, on the part of the principal to continue the employment to the end of the agreed period. This can only be determined from the circumstances of each particular If there was such an obligation, liability will not be case (c). escaped by the voluntary winding up of a company (c?), or the dissolution of a partnership firm {e) constituting the principal but
,
De la Tour (1853), 2 E. & B. 678; Balfe v. West (1853), 13 ElseeY. Gatward (1793), 5 Term Rep. 143. {q) Dickinson v. Lilwall (1815), 4 Camp. 279 (by custom a broker's authority expires with the day) Seton v. Slade (1802), 7 Ves. 265. (r) Danly v. Coutts (1885), 29 Ch. D. 500 ; Laiuford v. Harris (1896), 12 T. L. R. 275 (as to stockbroker's authority). (s) Bell V. Balls, [1897] 1 Ch. 663 (the performance of the particular duty ends the authority, as where an auctioneer sold a week after the auction he was held to have no authority). {t) Fhcdes v. Forivood (1876), 1 App. Cas. 256; Tasher v. Shepherd (1861), 6 H. & N. 575 Northey v. Trevillion (1902), 18 T. L. E. 648. (a) Esposito V. Boiuden (1857), 7 E. & B. 763 (where the outbreak of war avoided a charterparty). ip) Eochster v.
C. B.
466
Blackburn v. Scholes (1810), 2 Camp. 341, per Lord Ellenborough at 343; Macbeath v. Ellis (1828), 4 Bing. 578; Gilloio v. Aberdare (1892), 9 T. L. E. 12 Seton v. Slade, supra, at p. 276 Bell v. Balls, supra ; and see Butler v. Knight (1867), L. E. 2 Exch. 109, and R. v. Justices of Leitrim, [1900] 2 Ir. E. 397. (c) Hamlyn v. Wood, [1891] 2 Q. B. 488; Mclntyre v. Belcher (1863), 14 C. B. (N. s.) 654 Turnery. Goldsmith, [1891] 1 Q. B. 544. (d) Be Patent Floor Cloth Co., Bean and Qilberfs Claim (1872), 26 L. T. 467; Re Imperial Wine Co., Shirreff's Case (1872), L. E. 14 Eq. 417 Re London and Scottish Bank, Ex parte Logan (1870), L. E. 9 Eq. 149; Re English a?id Scottish Marine Insurance Co., Ex parte Maclure (1870), 5 Ch. App. 737. (e) Rhodes v. Forwood, swpra (agreement as agent for sale of coals for fixed time implied no undertaking to pay damages on sale of the colliery) Stirling (&)
p.
_
