Agent Of A Foreign Principal
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1960.tb00643.x |
| Date | 01 November 1960 |
| Published date | 01 November 1960 |
Nov.
1960
NOTES
OF
CASES
695
not) snap at an offer which he must have perfectly well known to
be made by mistake.
. .
.”
The qualification which seems justified
by the decision in
Imperial Glass
would seem to be
“
but a person
who has changed
his
position relying on a mistaken quotation may
snap up a subsequent offer based
on
the mistaken quotation even
though he knows
or
has good reason to suspect that a mistake has
been made.”
The decision attempts to strike a balance between two parties
who each contributed to the events which resulted in the damage
complained of by the one.
It
is commercially reasonable and the
common practice to rely on quotations given by reputable
firms
in estimating and bidding on contracts. Had a contract with the
respondent supplier never been made, either because the mistake
was discovered before the written offer was communicated,
or,
for
example, because of the supervening bankruptcy of the respondent,
the loss arising out of his contractual obligation to the school sub-
contractor would have rested on the appellant. He would have
had
no
action in contract
or
in tort against the resp~ndent.~
On the other hand
it
is also common commercial practice to
question a quotation which seems unduly out of line with quota-
tions received from other suppliers, though not usually disclosing
the details of those other quotations. To reach a dec‘lsion wholly
in favour of either party could not fail to impose an unjust burden
on
the losing side, and one which is
“
open to question
on
moral
and ethical grounds.”
ERIC
C.
E.
TODD.
AGENT
OF
A
FOREIGN PRINCIPAL
THE
majority of recent textbooks which treat of agency topics
either doubt
or
deny the continued existence of the once well-
established presumption that an agent acting for a foreign principal
assumed a personal liability. This seems to lend a special interest
to some remarks of Pilcher
J.
in the recent case of
Cox
(trading as
Port
of
Richborough)
v.
Somell.a
The facts in outline were that
the plaintiff sued the defendant for loading charges in respect of
cattle exported by the defendant through the
Port
of
Richborough.
The learned judge found that the defendant had in fact agreed to
pay these charges and in consequence gave judgment for the
plaintiff. In two of the three transactions which were the subject
9
In
Gillis
Supply
Co.
v.
Chicago, Milwaukee and Puget Sound
R.W.
Co.
(1911)
18
W.L.R.
335
the British Columbia Court of Appeal denied
an
action to
recover damages caused to the plaintiff who bought goods relying
on
an
incorrect quotation by the defendants of freight rates, the error having been
made by mistake end
not
deliberately and recklessly.
1
See Bowstead,
Agency,
12th ed., p. 201; Anson,
Contract,
2lst
ed:,
p. 518.
2
See Powell,
Agency,
p.
207; Fridman,
Agency,
p.
173; Hanbury,
Agency,
p. 164; Cheshire
Q
Fifoot,
Contract,
5th ed..
p.
399; Chitty,
Contracts,
21st
ed.,
Vol.
2,
pp. 56 and
60;
Scrutton,
CharteTparties,
16th ed., pp.
39-40.
8
[1960]
1
Lloyd’s Rep. 471.
To continue reading
Request your trial