Agents for Foreign Principals
| Author | A. H. Hudson |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1966.tb01124.x |
| Date | 01 July 1966 |
| Published date | 01 July 1966 |
THE
MODERN
LAW
REVIEW
Volume
29
July
1966
No.
4
AGENTS FOR FOREIGN PRINCIPALS
A
PROBLEM
in the law of agency which seems to be involved in some
doubt is the effect
of
the foreign character of
a
principal upon the
personal liability of
an
agent acting
for
him in this c0untry.l
In
the
last century
it
was generally said that there
was
a
presumption that
the agent assumed
personal
liability and did
not
have authority
to
create privity of contract between his foreign principal and the
English
third
party. These two elements were almost always
coupled together, even though the second, absence of privity
of
contract, might not have been essential to achieving the purpose the
presumption was intended to serve, the safeguarding of the English
third
party by providing
a
defendant in this country
in
the event
of
the foreign principal’s default.2
A
typical statement of the position may be found
in
Elbinger
v.
Claye
where Blackburn
J.
said
:
“
Where
a
foreigner has instructed English merchants to
act
for
him,
I
take
it
that the usage of trade established for many
years has been that
it
is
understood that the foreign constituent
has
not
authorised him to pledge his credit
.
.
,
or
to establish
privity of contract between him and the home supplier.”
It
will
thus be seen that when the presumption operated the
‘‘
agent
”
ceased to
be
an
“
agent
”
in the strict legal sense
of
a
person empowered
to
create privity between his principal and
a
third
party and became
a
principal party, though
in
commercial language
1
See two commente by the
preeent
writer in (1967)
86;
Can.
Bar
Rev.
886,
(1960)
29
M.L.R.
695
and worka
there
cited. See now
aleo
Chitty
on
Contraots,
&d
ed.,
Vol.
II,
p.
89,
Powell,
Agency,
2nd
ed.,
pp.
%%a63
and
261,
Stoljar,
Agency,
pp. 238-242,
Aneon,
Contract,
92nd. ed.;
p.
646, Traitel,
Contraat,
pp.
482-493, Sutton
&
Shannon,
Contracts,
6th
ed.,
p.
517,
Hanbury,
Agenoy,
2nd ed., pp.
1!7
and
178,
Scnctton
on
Charterpartiee,
17th ed., p.
84.
Compare Cheehire
&
Pifoot,
Contract,
5th
ed.,
p.
899
(denying
the
exiabnce
of
a
presumption
of
peraonal
liability) and 6th ed.,
p.
416 (admitting
the
continued
exiatence
of
such
B
DreeumotionL
a
See Stoljari
Agenoy,
a
8
(1878)
L.R.
8
Q.B.
913
at
p.
317.
288:
citing
Story
and Blackburn
J.
in
Armutrong
v.
Stoke8
(1872)
L.R.
7
$B.
698
at
p. 606.
868
VOL.
29
10
To continue reading
Request your trial