MLL215 Study Guide - Final Guide: Globe Life And Accident Insurance Company, Stockbroker, Implied Warranty
2 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
Existence of such is known by TP at the time of contracting with A. P may be identified or unidentified. The
contract is deemed to be that of P, and A is not liable for the contract except:
a. Where A contracts outside the scope their actual or apparent authority;
b. A agrees to be liable
c. Usage of custom makes A liable
d. A contracts by deed in their own name;
e. P is non-existent
The question is what the parties intended, or must be fairly understood to have intended.
UNIDENTIFIED PRINCIPAL
One whose existence but not identify is known to TP. General rule is that where A discloses the fact that P
eists, ut ot the ae of P, A’s liailit, proided he or she otrats as a aget, is siilar to the ases
where the name of P is disclosed. TP cannot sue A because the contract is between TP and P.
Marsh & McLennan Pty Ltd v Stanyers Transport Pty Ltd [1994] 2 VR 232.
Neely v Southern Cross Feeds Pty Ltd (No 2), [2013] VSC 238
A contracted on behalf of P, but did not initially disclose the correct name of P to the TP.
Held: There was a contact between TP and P. A was not personally liable.
Hargrae J: Takig the eidee as a hole, it is lear that Mr Neely disclosed that he was acting as
agent for a company when ordering the chaff from Southern Cross.
UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
Both existence and identity are unknown to the TP. Kooragang.
Watteau v Fenwick [1893] 1 QB 346.
This case concerned the liability of an undisclosed principal for unauthorized contracts entered into by the
priipal’s aget. TP plaitiff sold igars to A o redit. The udislosed priipal UP/defedat/hotel
owner) had forbidden A fro uyig igars o redit. The igars ere suh as ould usually be supplied
to ad dealt i at suh a estalishet.
HELD: that once it is established that the defendant was the principal, then the
ordinary rules of principal and agent apply, notwithstanding the fact that
the relationship was unknown to the plaintiff. The principal is liable for
acts of the agent, as long as those are those usually confided to an agent
of that character. This is true even though the agent was acting outside
the scope of his actual authority.
o An undisclosed P may sue and be sued on a contract made by A on his behalf, acting within the scope
of his actual authority;
o I eterig ito the otrat, A ust ited to at o P’s ehalf;
o The agent of an undisclosed P may also sue and be sued on the contract;
o Any defense which the TP may have against the A is available against his P;
o The ters of the otrat a, epressl or ipliatio, elude P’s right to sue, ad his liailit to
be sued. The contract itself, or the circumstances surrounding the contract, may show that A is the
true and only principal.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Existence of such is known by tp at the time of contracting with a. p may be identified or unidentified. The question is what the parties intended, or must be fairly understood to have intended. One whose existence but not identify is known to tp. Tp cannot sue a because the contract is between tp and p. Marsh & mclennan pty ltd v stanyers transport pty ltd [1994] 2 vr 232. Neely v southern cross feeds pty ltd (no 2), [2013] vsc 238. A contracted on behalf of p, but did not initially disclose the correct name of p to the tp. Held: there was a contact between tp and p. a was not personally liable. Hargra(cid:448)e j: (cid:862)taki(cid:374)g the e(cid:448)ide(cid:374)(cid:272)e as a (cid:449)hole, it is (cid:272)lear that mr neely disclosed that he was acting as agent for a company when ordering the chaff from southern cross. Both existence and identity are unknown to the tp.
