term1 Definition1term2 Definition2term3 Definition3
Please sign in to your Google account to access your documents:
Freeman v Buckhurst Park Properties
(apparent authority)
- involved a director of a company who was not the managing director of a company BUT was the managing director to the knowledge of the contractor
- HELD:
- the company was bound by the agents actions due to apparent authority
- APPARENT AUTHORITY =
- principal makes representation that the agent has the authority to enter the principal into contracts of the kind within the scope of their apparent authority - principal is liable for any obligations
Savill v Chase Holdings
- agent purported to have authority from the principal that they didn't actually have
- used letterhead, answered phonecalls etc
- third party sued claiming the parent company was bound by the agent due to apparent authority
- were not bound
- THE REPRESENTATION MUST COME FROM THE PRINCIPAL
.
Need help typing ? See our FAQ (opens in new window)
Please sign in to create this set. We'll bring you back here when you are done.
Discard Changes Sign in
Please sign in to add to folders.
Sign in
Don't have an account? Sign Up »
You have created 2 folders. Please upgrade to Cram Premium to create hundreds of folders!