8. Relations between agent and third party

2019 ◽  
pp. 160-182
Author(s):  
Eric Baskind ◽  
Greg Osborne ◽  
Lee Roach

This chapter considers the relations between the agent and third party. The typical function of an agent is to affect the legal position of his principal in relation to third parties, typically achieved by the agent effecting contractual relations between his principal and a third party or third parties. To this contract, the agent is usually a stranger and it therefore follows that, providing all parties perform their obligations, there will be no legal relations between the agent and third party, aside from any warranty of authority that might be deemed to exist. If the parties, however, fail to properly perform their obligations, legal relations between the agent and third party may arise that allow one party to sue, or be sued by, the other. This chapter discusses the general rule, and also those situations where the agent and third party will acquire a cause of action against the other.

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Zuzanna Służewska

THE CONTRACT OF PARTNERSHIP AS A BASE OF IN SOLIDUM LIABILITY IN ROMAN LAWSummary In the modern civil law joint and several liability of partners in a partnership is a rule rather than an exception. According to the common opinion this concept did not originate in the Roman law but was first invented in the medieval times by glossators and commentators. The Roman partnership created only a private relation between partners (who, due to a conclusion of that contract were reciprocally obliged to act together in accordance with a good faith in order to conduct common business and to divide profits and bear losses in proportion to their respective shares) and its conclusion did not affect their liability against third parties. The partners had no right to bind themselves contractually to any third parties, unless they all acted jointly (in this case, however, their joint representation was derived from their expressed declarations and not the existence of a contract o f partnership). Thus, any commitment made by an individual partner, even if made within the scope of a partnership having obtained other partners’ consent, was treated as a personal debt of this partner and the remaining partners were not liable against his contractor. Then, of course, the partner who made a commitment (acting within the partnership’s business) could claim a part of what he had paid to a third party from other partners in proportion to their respective shares in the common enterprise.Such a solution was necessary because of the purely consensual character o f the Roman partnership and the lack of any formal procedure of its conclusion and dissolution. The existence of that contract could not affect the model of the external liability of partners, because it would be too risky for third parties, which had no possibility to make sure if a contract of partnership between some persons had been actually concluded or not. Thus, the role of a contract of partnership in the Roman law was only limited to determine a mutual liability o f partners, to specify their respective rights and obligations and to define the scope of their liability against other partners.There are only a few written sources concerning so called specific kinds of partnership characterized by untypical joint and several responsibility of partners. Moreover these texts are not very clear and are difficult to interpret, so the issue of specific kinds of a partnership is a matter of doubts among Romanists. Some authors even believe that the specific types of partnership did not exist in the Roman law at all.It should be firstly observed that the texts regarding a contract of partnership itself (the texts included in the title pro socio of Justinian’ Digest) did not raise the question of the external liability of partners because they were devoted to internal settlement o f accounts within sociu Thus, taking into account only these texts one cannot ascertain that a conclusion of a contract of partnership could not affect in any way the model of the partners’ liability against third parties.Secondly, the other texts concerning the regulation of conducting an economic activity in the Roman law (actio institoria, actio exercitoria and actio de peculio) present some regularity in an introduction of joint and several liability of debtors.On the one hand that model of the liability was introduced in situations in which protecting safety of trade required that the creditor be able to claim a whole amount o f the debt from one person only.On the other hand this model of liability could be introduced only in these cases in which some internal relation existed between several debtors. On the grounds of such relations the debtor who satisfied in full the creditor’s claim could sue other debtors in order to recover their respective parts in the debt. In the Roman law that internal relation that guaranteed the possibility of a recourse could be either a joint-ownership or a partnership.Having considered that, one may say that the texts concerning specific kinds o f partnership do not prove existence of any special type of societas. These sources regard only the situations when a joint and several liability between several debtors was introduced because it was justified by the circumstances: that is the necessity to protect the safety of trade on one hand and the existence of the contract of partnership that guaranteed a possibility to realize the recourse, on the other.In conclusion one may say that although a closing of a contract of partnership did not create a joint and several liability of partners, in some cases its existence was decisive for introducing this model of liability since it guaranteed to every party a possibility to act against the others to obtain the recourse. Thus, Roman jurisprudence made an important step towards the future introduction o f joint and several liability of partners as a rule of a civil law.


1995 ◽  
pp. 753-755

2017 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 219-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT POWELL

Third parties often have a stake in the outcome of a conflict and can affect that outcome by taking sides. This article studies the factors that affect a third party's decision to take sides in a civil or interstate war by adding a third actor to a standard continuous-time war of attrition with two-sided asymmetric information. The third actor has preferences over which of the other two actors wins and for being on the winning side conditional on having taken sides. The third party also gets a flow payoff during the fighting which can be positive when fighting is profitable or negative when fighting is costly. The article makes four main contributions: First, it provides a formal framework for analyzing the effects of endogenous intervention on the duration and outcome of the conflict. Second, it identifies a “boomerang” effect that tends to make alignment decisions unpredictable and coalitions dynamically unstable. Third, it yields several clear comparative-static results. Finally, the formal analysis has implications for empirical efforts to estimate the effects of intervention, showing that there may be significant selection and identification issues.


Author(s):  
Munday Roderick

This chapter explores the legal relations between the agent and the third party. An agent acting for a disclosed principal (named or unnamed) normally can neither sue nor be sued by the third party on contracts concluded on behalf of that principal. In cases of disclosed agency, the object is to bring principal and third party into direct contractual relations. At this point, the agent customarily drops out of the transaction, neither acquiring rights against the third party nor incurring liability to the third party. There are, however, a number of exceptions to the general rule that an agent does not customarily acquire rights or incur liabilities under their principal’s contract, which are elaborated in the chapter.


Al-MAJAALIS ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-102
Author(s):  
Anas Burhanuddin

Muamalat (transactions or dealings) is a quarter of the fiqh chapter besides worship, munakahah (marriage) and jinayah chapters. Another perspective, muamalah is half fiqh; because munakahah and jinayah can be put under muamalah. Showing the urgency of the muamalah chapter is being half of the religion. On the other hand, the rules “Basically, the Command Means Obligatory, Unless The Postulate Shows Other Things” is one of the most important rules in ushl al-fiqh. This study examines this rule and its application in the Muamalah chapter. The research method used is a qualitative with a theory implementation approach. The data sources are the books of ushlal-fiqh, fiqh, interpretation, hadith and Arabic. Data collection and analysis are done deductively. The most important results of this study are as follows: (1) The strongest opinion is that the command basically shows the obligation, unless the postulate transfers it to another meaning. (2) The ushuliyyah rules have enough examples of application in the muamalah chapter, such as: a. Basically the order means mandatory while there is no postulate that diverts it to other meanings, for example the order to return the slave brothers who are sold separately, the order to determine the size of the salam commodity, the order to return goods borrowed and deposited, and the order to sell similar ribawi commodities in tamatsul (such as in the dose or the scales) and taqabud (cash). b. The orders change meaning to sunnah or other meanings if there is a postulate that diverts them to these other meanings. For example, orders to bring witnesses in a sale and purchase transaction, waqf orders, and orders to record debts and credit. (3) Sometimes there are different points of view in understanding the meaning of the command, and whether there is a postulate that diverts it from the meaning of mandatory. For example, the order to take and announce the finding (luqathah) and the order to accept the transfer of receivables to third parties, if the third party is rich (liquid).


Author(s):  
Graham Virgo

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.


2020 ◽  
pp. 613-660
Author(s):  
Jack Beatson ◽  
Andrew Burrows ◽  
John Cartwright

This Chapter deals with the scope of a valid contract when formed, and the question: to whom does the obligation extend? This question is considered under two separate headings: (1) the acquisition of rights by a third party, and (2) the imposition of liabilities upon a third party. At common law the general rule is that no one but the parties to a contract can be entitled under it, or bound by it. This principle is known as that of privity of contract.


Author(s):  
Graham Virgo

This chapter examines the personal liability of third parties when there is a breach of trust or breach of fiduciary duty. It explains that there are two types of personal liability of third parties. One is receipt-based liability when a third party has received property in which the beneficiary or principal has an equitable proprietary interest and the other is accessorial liability when the third party has encouraged or assisted a breach of a trust or fiduciary duty. The elements of different causes of action relevant to receipt-based liability and accessorial liability are examined, notably the action for unconscionable receipt and the action of dishonest assistance. The controversial question of whether liability should be strict or fault-based is considered and, if the latter, the nature of the fault requirement.


Author(s):  
Ewan McKendrick

This chapter examines the impact of a contract on third parties. It addresses two main questions: whether or not a third party can acquire any rights under the contract, and whether or not the contract can impose upon him obligations or liabilities. The general rule adopted by English law is that the contract creates rights and imposes obligations only between the parties to the contract: the third party thus neither acquires rights under the contract nor is he subject to liabilities. This general rule is known as the doctrine of privity of contract. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, however, provides a relatively simple mechanism by which contracting parties can confer upon a third party a right to enforce a term of their contract. The dominant philosophy that underpins the 1999 Act is one of freedom of contract and, this being the case, the success of the Act in practice will depend upon contracting parties themselves. The chapter examines the individual sections of the 1999 Act, the exceptions to the doctrine of privity that existed at common law and under various statutes prior to the enactment of the 1999 Act. The chapter concludes by considering the extent to which a third party can be subject to an obligation by a contract to which he is not a party.


Author(s):  
Paul S. Davies

This chapter considers situations where one party (A) makes an offer to another party (B) but a third party (C) purports to accept the offer made by A. If A makes an offer to B and B alone, that offer cannot be accepted by C. Whether an offer is restricted to B alone is a question of interpretation. If A makes a mistake as to the other party’s identity, no contract will be formed (or, as it is sometimes said, the contract will be void). If A makes a mistake as to the other party’s attributes (such as his creditworthiness) then a contract will be formed. However, that contract may be voidable as a result of a misrepresentation. Whether a contract is void or voidable is particularly important where third parties have acquired rights in the subject matter of a contract.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document