FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35  
36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   >>   >|  
onary power to fix the price and other terms, may employ a subagent to look up a purchaser, or to show the land to one who is desirous of purchasing. When a person is really acting as an agent, but this is not known by the persons with whom he is doing business, he is liable to them as if he were the principal. It often happens for various reasons that agents do not disclose their principals. Suppose a dealer finds out that the agent presumably acting for himself was, in truth, acting for another, could the real principal be held responsible and the agent escape, or could both be held? The answer is, after discovering the real principal, both can be held, or either of them. The failure of an agent to disclose his agency will not make him individually liable if the other party knew that he was dealing with a principal with whom he had had dealings through the agent's predecessor. Notice of the agency to one member of a firm is not sufficient notice to the firm to release the agent from personal responsibility in subsequent transactions with another member who did not know and was not informed of the agency. Again, the liability must be determined by the conditions existing at the time of the contract, his subsequent disclosure will not relieve the agent. Finally, while the agent may be held in such a case, the principal also is liable, except on instruments negotiable and under seal, on the discovery of his relationship as principal. While secret instructions to an agent that are unknown to persons dealing with him do not bind them, the principal is liable for any acts within the scope of his agent's authority connected with the business conducted by his agent for him. Some very difficult questions arise in applying this rule. A car conductor is instructed to treat passengers civilly and to use no harsh means with them, save in extreme cases. How far may a conductor go with a disorderly passenger? Very likely he would be justified in putting him off; suppose the conductor was angry and administered hard and needless kicks in the operation? His principal surely would not be liable, though the conductor doubtless would be. Suppose in buying a railway ticket the agent loses his temper and calls you a liar and a thief, you would have an action against him for slander, unless you happened to be one, but you would have no action against his principal for the company did not employ him to slander its patrons; to do this was
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35  
36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   >>   >|  



Top keywords:
principal
 

liable

 

conductor

 
agency
 

acting

 

employ

 
subsequent
 

Suppose

 

member

 
slander

disclose

 

action

 

persons

 
dealing
 
business
 

instructions

 

instructed

 

civilly

 
unknown
 

discovery


passengers

 

questions

 

authority

 

connected

 

conducted

 

difficult

 

applying

 

relationship

 

secret

 

putting


buying

 

railway

 
ticket
 

doubtless

 

operation

 
surely
 

temper

 

company

 

patrons

 

happened


needless

 

disorderly

 
extreme
 

passenger

 

administered

 
suppose
 

justified

 
release
 
agents
 
principals