University:
Western Governors University
Course:
NURS 5600 | Organizational Leadership and Interprofessional Team
Academic year:

2022
Views:

85

Pages:

2
Author:

Alya A

WATTEAU v. FENWICK [1893] 1 Queen’s Bench 346 (1892) FACTS: Parties: Plaintiff: Watteau Defendant: Fenwick Procedural History:   Bench trial in favor of Π Δ appealed Relevant Facts:       Humble presumably owned a beerhouse Humble transferred the beerhouse to the Δ Humble remained as Δ’s manager at the beerhouse License was in Humble’s name and Humble’s name was over the door Humble had no authority to buy any goods for the business except bottled ales and mineral waters, Δs had to supply everything else Goods were delivered to Humble and Πs gave only Humble a line of credit ISSUE:  Whether Δs can be sued as undisclosed principals by Πs who carried on business with an agent acting outside his scope of authority PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Plaintiff:  Defendant:  DISPOSITION OF THE COURT:  Affirmed RULE OF LAW:  The liability of a principal for the acts of his agent, done contrary to his secret instructions depends upon his holding him out as his agent    Where a man carries on business in his own name through a manager he would be liable for goods supplied even where the manager exceeded his authority Where there is no holding out by the principal but the business is carried on in the agent’s name and the goods are supplied on his credit, a person wishing to go behind the agent and make the principal liable must show an agency of fact An undisclosed principal can only be sued if discovered and the agent was acting within the scope of authority HOLDING:  Once it is established that the Δ was the real principal, the principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character, not withstanding limitations, as between the principal and the agent, put upon that authority COURT’S REASONING:    No limitations of authority as between the dormant and active partner will avail the dormant partner as to things within the ordinary authority of a partner A principal is liable for an agent acting within the scope of his authority, though forbidden by a principal, if the principal is undisclosed and then discovered If Δ is not liable, public policy concern that principal would have agent never disclose the identity

Watteau v. Fenwick - Lecture Notes 14

Related Documents

Recommended Documents

Description

Related Documents

Almost There!

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock