This case comes under Law of Agency. Agency Law is concerned with any “principal, agent and third party” relationship; a relationship in which one person has legal authority to act for another. Agency involves three parties : •Principal – Mr. Smithfield •Agent – U. K. Rail •Third Party – Pig resort/Care Centre Agency relationship may arise in five ways and one them which arise in this case is “Agency Of Necessity” and the requirements are : •Genuine necessity – there was a delay in delivering Pig and that’s why it was not delivered at time . •Communication Impossible – they did not know the full name and address of Mr.
Smithfield . •Actions in the interests of the principal – they put the award winning pig into a very expensive pig resort/care centre. If we categories Agents then its an Special Agent. A Special Agent is one who has authority to act for his principal in some particular transaction only. On the other hand, third parties dealing with a Special Agent goes beyond what he has been instructed to do the third party cannot hold the principal liable. A Special Agent , on the other hand, has no ostensible authority and so if be oversteps his actual authority his actions are not binding on his principal.
Conclusion – Mr. Smithfield is liable pay under agency of necessity, the cost incurred in keeping award winning pig Horace into a very expensive pig resort/care centre. The U. K. Rail acted as an agent, and failed to delivered the pig, as they were not having sufficient contact details and were not able to deliver it. In case of emergency, which forced U. K. Rail to act out of necessity. Case 7 . Great Northern Railway Co v Swaffield (1974) – These both cases are similar to each other and in case 7 Swaffield was liable to pay the livery costs –putting the horse in stables was acting out of necessity.
Partnership means a formal agreement between two or more parties that have agreed to work together in the pursuit of common goals/profit. Dormant Partners :- Contributor or investor who is not active in managing a firm and may not be known to the outsiders. A dormant partner shares profit and losses with other partners but (if he or she is not a signatory to the loan agreements) generally may withdraw from the firm without notice to the lenders. Partnership Act 1890 has different sections and this case falls under some of the sections.
Section 4(1) Persons those who are entered into a partnership with each other are collectively called a firm. Like Homer, Barney and Moe are partners and are called a firm. Section 4(2) In Scotland, a firm is a legal person distinct from the individual partners of whom it is composed, but an individual partner may be charged on a decree or diligence directed against the firm. They imply for set off of debts like Barney and Moe. Section 26 : Any partner has right to terminate a partnership at will at any time by giving a notice to other partners or a firm.
Section 9 : Under this section every partner in a firm is liable jointly and severally with the other partners for all debts and obligations incurred while he is a partner. Case 18 : Court v Berlin (1897) If we go through this case which is just similar to our case study. In this case as well both dormant partners are fully liable and the contract entered into as an single continuing contract which means the remaining partner will go to see the action through to the end. Conclusion : As similar to case 18, Barney and Moe are fully liable to.