12 Legal Relations Between Agent and Third Party

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Munday Roderick
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
The Third Party

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.

12. The creation of agency and the agent’s authority

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric Baskind
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Third Party

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, Key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the creation of agency and its three main parties: the agent, the principal, and the third party. The primary purpose of the agent is to bring the principal and the third party into direct contractual relations, with the principal taking on the rights and liabilities created by the contracts provided the agent had authority to act. The chapter looks at several kinds of agent’s authority, including actual authority, apparent authority, and usual authority, and also considers agency of necessity as well as cases where the principal may ratify a transaction.

scholarly journals Third Party Fraud inducing Material Mistake Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd v du Toit 2011 4 SA 72 (SCA)

2017 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 186
Author(s):  
Chris James Pretorius
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Rule ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Slip Knot

In Slip Knot Investments v Du Toit 2011 4 SA 72 (SCA) the Supreme Court of Appeal had to determine if the material mistake of a contractual party induced by the fraud of an independent third party could sustain a plea of iustus error raised by the mistaken party. The position prior to this decision was uncertain and characterised by inconsistency, mostly occasioned by the application of the iustus error doctrine together with fault. The Supreme Court of Appeal found that in the circumstances the mistaken party was liable, despite the fraud of the third party, on the basis of the reliance theory. The decision is commendable for bringing a measure of certainty to the law of mistake on this point and indicating that the reliance theory (as opposed to the iustus error doctrine) is the appropriate means to resolving such cases. Nevertheless, it is suggested that although the general rule implied by the court's approach is entirely apposite, there may well be exceptional instances where on the basis of relevant policy considerations the reliance theory should not prevail and the mistaken party should be absolved from contractual liability. In this manner reliance, which at first seems reasonable for being induced by the conduct of the contract denier, may upon further reflection be regarded as unreasonable based on the consideration of risk creation at the hand of the contract assertor, for instance. Admitting exceptions in appropriate circumstances would also provide a degree of consonance with earlier case law, where, even if the court's approach was open to theoretical criticism, a court has intuitively felt that liability should not lie.

10 Legal Relations Between Principal and Third Party

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Munday Roderick
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
The Third Party

This chapter considers how and when direct contractual relations are created. The primary purpose of agency is to bring principals and third parties into such relations. In the first section, disclosed agency is considered—that is, situations in which the third party is aware of the existence of a principal, whether that principal is identified or not. The second section deals with the more anomalous situation, where the agent acts for a principal whose very existence is concealed from the third party. Finally, the third section explores two exceptions to the principle, nemo dat quod non habet and the provisions of the Factors Act 1889, which permit ‘mercantile agents’ under the Act to make unauthorized dispositions of their principal’s property to third parties.

12. The creation of agency and the agent’s authority

2019 ◽  
pp. 186-199
Author(s):  
Eric Baskind
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
The Third ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Third Party

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter focuses on the creation of agency and its three main parties: the agent, the principal, and the third party. The primary purpose of the agent is to bring the principal and the third party into direct contractual relations, with the principal taking on the rights and liabilities created by the contracts provided the agent had authority to act. The chapter looks at several kinds of agent’s authority, including actual authority, apparent authority, and usual authority, and also considers agency of necessity as well as cases where the principal may ratify a transaction.

scholarly journals Interference of the intervener in contractual relations: means of protecting a bona fide creditor

2021 ◽  
pp. 83-98
Author(s):  
Mikhail Leonidovich Osipov ◽  
Anastasiya Aleksandrovna Guseva
Keyword(s):  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Economic Losses ◽  
The Third ◽  
Bona Fide ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Contractual Relations ◽  
The Third Party

The subject of this article is relations that arise to interference of the third party (intervener) in contractual relations of the parties. The author considers the question of possible means of protecting a bona fide creditor from the actions of an intervener, such as challenging of the transaction consummated between the obligator and the intervener, as well as recovery of tort damages from the intervener for the benefit of a bona fide creditor. The article examines the issues emerging in the context of application of both methods of protection. The conclusion is made on the possibility of use of both methods, in preference to recovery of damages. It is noted that challenging of the transactions allows to equitably redistribute the burden of proof in disputes with a mala fide intervener, while the tort claim implies the possibility of recovering pure economic losses from a mala fide intervener. The authors indicate that the current Russian legislation does not contain dogmatic obstacles for application of such method of protecting a mala fide intervener.

Resolving tension from the third-party forgiveness effect

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaclyn M. Moloney ◽  
Chelsea A. Reid ◽  
Jody L. Davis ◽  
Jeni L. Burnette ◽  
Jeffrey D. Green
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third Party

Relaxations of Contractual Privity and the Need for Third Party Rights in Chinese Contract Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chen Lei
Keyword(s):  
Direct Action ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Chinese Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Third Party ◽  
The Right

This chapter examines the position of third party beneficiaries in Chinese law. Article 64 of the Chinese Contract Law states that where a contract for the benefit of a third party is breached, the debtor is liable to the creditor. The author regards this as leaving unanswered the question of whether the thirdparty has a right of direct action against the debtor. One view regards the third party as having the right to sue for the benefit although this right was ultimately excluded from the law. Another view, supported by the Supreme People’s Court, is that Article 64 does not provide a right of action for a third party and merely prescribes performance in ‘incidental’ third party contracts. The third view is that there is a third party right of action in cases of ‘genuine’ third party contracts but courts are unlikely to recognize a third party action where the contract merely purports to confer a benefit on the third party.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document