You are on page 1of 42

LAW OF AGENCY

BACHELOR OF ACCOUNTANCY LAW 385 COMMERCIAL LAW

LAW OF AGENCY
Governed by Part X of the Contracts Act 1950. s.135 of the Contracts Act 1950 : An "agent" is a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the "principal". Agency - relationship which subsists between a principal & an agent, where the agent has been authorized to act for the principal or represent him in dealing with others / 3rd party. Agent - A person who is employed by the principal to do an act on behalf of the principal or to represent the principal in dealings with the 3'd party Principal - A person who authorizes the agent to act on his behalf

LAW OF AGENCY
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT WHERE THE AGENT DERIVES AUTHORITY CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND THIRD PARTY TO WHOM THE AGENT DEALS WITH

TYPES OF CONTRACT CREATED IN AN AGENCY

CAPACITY
AGENT: S.137 ANYONE CAN BE AN AGENT BUT THE PRINCIPAL HOLDS RESPONSIBILITY PRINCIPAL: S.136 AGE OF MAJORITY & SOUND MIND CHAN YIN TEE V WILLIAM JACKS & CO (MALAYA) LTD

CAPACITY OF PARTIES IN AN AGENCY

FORMATION
By express appointment

By the doctrine of estoppel or holding out

By implied appointment

By necessity

By ratification

AGENCY BY EXPRESS APPOINTMENT

Section 140 Contracts Act 1950:


An authority is said to be express when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said to be implied when it is to be implied from the circumstances of the case, and things spoken or written, or in the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case.

AGENCY BY IMPLIED APPOINTMENT


IMPLIED FROM THE RELATIONSHIP OF HUSBAND AND WIFE REBUTTABLE IMPLIED BY S.7 OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT 1961

IMPLIED FROM CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY WORDS OR CONDUCT S.140 (Chan Yin Tee V William Jacks)

IMPLIED AGENCY

AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
EFFECT: PRINCIPAL IS BOUND RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF THE ACT BY AGENT AND NOT THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT S.149

HOW? AGENT EXCEEDS OR HAS NO AUTHORITY


CERTIFICATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF AN ACT DONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY

PRINCIPAL CAN CHOOSE TO REJECT OR ACCEPT S.149

CAN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED S.150

AGENCY BY RATIFICATION
HOW? AGENT EXCEEDS OR HAS NO AUTHORITY PRINCIPAL CAN CHOOSE TO REJECT OR ACCEPT S.149

CERTIFICATION OR ACCEPTANCE OF AN ACT DONE WITHOUT AUTHORITY EFFECT: PRINCIPAL IS BOUND RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE DATE OF THE ACT BY AGENT AND NOT THE DATE OF THE CONTRACT S.149 (Bolton & Partners V Lambert)

CAN EXPRESS OR IMPLIED S.150

CONDITIONS FOR RATIFICATION


UNAUTHORISED ACT OF AGENT ACT DONE WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF MATERIAL FACTS BY PRINCIPAL AT THE TIME OF RATIFICATION S.151 (Marsh V Joseph) RATIFICATION OF THE WHOLE ACT AND NOT PART ONLY S.152

MUST BE A LEGAL BROOK V HOOK (agent forged signature of principal)

PRINCIPAL MUST HAVE CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE ACT AND RATIFICATION (Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co V Farnham)

RATIFICATION WITHIN REASONABLE TIME (Metropolitan Asylum Board V Kingham & Sons kes telur)

AGENT ACTING AS AN AGENT AND NOT IN HIS OWN NAME (Keighley Maxted & Co V Durant the wheat case)

PRINCIPAL MUST BE IN EXISTENCE (Kelner v Baxter the hotel case where the principal company was not yet registered)

NO INJURY OR AFFECT INTEREST OF THIRD PARTY S.153 Illustration (b)

AGENCY BY NECESSITY/EMERGENCY
An agent has authority, in an emergency, to do all such acts for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss as would be done by a person of ordinary prudence S.142

How? When a wife is deserted or is justified and has no means of support

Where trustee situation arises

GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY V SWAFFIELD the lonely horse case

CONDITIONS FOR AGENCY BY NECESSITY


BEFORE AN AGENCY BY NECESSITY CAN ARISE:
MUST BE REAL AND ACTUAL EMERGENCY (Phelps James & Co V Hill look at the danger, facilities, cost, time, distance etc) INCONVENIENCE IS NOT AN EMERGENCY AND A SALE BY AGENT = CONVERSION (Sachs V Miklos) AGENT ENTRUSTED WITH PRINCIPALS GOODS @ TRUSTEE SITUATION S.142 (Jebarra V Ottoman Bank) IMPOSSIBLE TO GET PRINCIPALS INSTRUCTION EVEN AFTER USE ALL REASONABLE DILIGENCE S.167 (Springer v Great Western Railway Co the stinky tomato ship case) AGENT ACTS IN GOOD FAITH

EFFECTS OF AGENCY BY NECESSITY

AGENT PROTECTED AGAINST ANY CLAIM BY PRINCIPAL

AGENT ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL PAYMENT FOR HIS EFFORTS IN PROTECTING PRINCIPALS INTEREST

CONTRACT EXISTS BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND THIRD PARTY

AGENCY BY ESTOPPEL
PRINCIPAL DOES NOT INFORM 3RD PARTY THAT AGENCY HAS TERMINATED FREEMAN & LOCKYER V BRUCKHURST PARK PROPERTIES LTD director acted on behalf of company & contracted with 3rd party with the other directors knowledge

WHEN PRINCIPAL INDUCES 3RD PARTY TO BELIEVE A PERSON IS HIS AGENT

S.180 PRINCIPAL IS BOUND

CLASSIFICATION OF AGENCY

CLASSIFICATION
ACCORDING TO EXTENT OF AUTHORITY
UNIVERSAL AGENT HAS EXTENSIVE POWERS, ALMOST LIKE PRINCIPAL E.G. POWER OF ATTORNEY GENERAL AGENT POWERS NORMAL TO NATURE OF BUSINESS OR TRADE

ACCORDING TO FUNCTIONS

SPECIAL AGENT LIMITED AND SPECIFIC AUTHORITY

DEL CREDERE AGENTS WHO GUARANTEES 3RD PARTY PERFORMANCE

FACTOR/ COMMERCIAL AGENT SELLS GOODS UNDER HIS OWN NAME AND HAS LIEN AS COMMISSION

BROKERS

AUCTIONEERS

BANKER AS AGENT FOR CUSTOMER AND BANK EMPLOYEES AS AGENT FOR THE BANK

AUTHORITY OF AGENT

TYPES OF AUTHORITY
ACTUAL AUTHORITY
EXPRESSED ORALLY OR IN WRITING S.141 ANY NECESSARY LAWFUL ACT ANY USUAL LAWFUL ACT

APPARENT/ OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY


ALL SUCH ACTS WHICH ARE PROPER/ NECESSARY/ USUAL DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES CUSTOMS OR USAGE OF THE TRADE SITUATION AND CONDUCT OF PARTIES

APPARENT OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY


PRINCIPAL BY WORDS / CONDUCT LEADS 3RD PARTY TO BELIEVE AGENT HAS AUTHORITY S.190
OVERBROOK ESTATES V GLENCOMBE PROPERTIES LTD auctioneer exceeded authority

GRAPHICS LINES PTE LTD V CHAI CHEE MEIN Kelab Malam

AGENT PREVIOUS AUTHORITY TERMINATED WITHOUT NOTICE TO 3RD PARTY

PRINCIPAL BOUND IF AGENT MAKES MISREPRESENTATION WITHIN HIS AUTHORITY

AGENT IS ALSO LIABLE FOR MISREPRESENTATION

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN IMPLIED USUAL AUTHORITY AND APPARENT AUTHORITY


IMPLIED USUAL AUTHORITY
BASED ON INFERENCE

APPARENT AUTHORITY
BASED ON REPRESENTATION MADE BY PRINCIPAL TO 3RD PARTY

DRAWN FROM AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRINCIPAL & AGENT

IRRESPECTIVE OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT

EFFECTS OF CONTRACTS MADE BY AGENTS

CONTRACT IS BINDING ON PRINCIPAL EFFECTS RD DEPENDS WHETHER 3 PARTY AWARE OF EXISTENCE OF PRINCIPAL

CATEGORIES OF PRINCIPAL
NAMED PRINCIPAL

DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL

NAMED PRINCIPAL
AGENT HAS NO RIGHTS/LIABILITIES EXCEPTIONS:

S.183 agent cannot personally enforce s.179 - Only principal can sue / be sued under the contract Condition: agent must act within his authority

If agent agrees to accept liability CHIN YUEN TUNG V BEP AKETIK If contract is in the agents own name If agent signs negotiable instrument in his own name without disclosure of agency KAVENA MEYDIN V KOMERAPPA CHITTY Agent exceeds authority and not ratified breach of warranty Agent is liable under custom / norm of trade

DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
AGENT HAS NO RIGHTS/LIABILITIES
S.183 agent cannot personally enforce s.179 - Only principal can sue / be sued under the contract Agent presumed liable S.183(a), (b) & (c) s.186 both agent and/or /both principal may be liable EXCEPTION #1: where contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods to overseas merchant; Merchant does not standing and credit of principal Contract is vide local agent No privity of contract unless expressed in agreement EXCEPTIONS #2 Name of principal not disclosed Agent remains liable even if/after 3rd party discovers principal Agent can be released by 3rd party EXCEPTIONS #3: Even if principal disclosed cannot be sued/immunity e.g. sovereign, ambassador, minor, unsound mind

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
WHERE AGENT HAS AUTHORITY TO BIND PRINCIPAL IDENTITY OR EXISTENCE OF PRINCIPAL NOT DISCLOSED RIGHTS OF 3RD PARTY CAN CLAIM AGENT/ PRINCIPAL S.186 AGENT CAN BE PERSONALLY LIABLE PERNAD TRADING SDN BHD V PERSATUAN PELADANG BAKTI MELAKA (Kes Baja) 3rd Party can choose who to sue unless there is undue delay or he represents he wont sue principal RIGHTS OF THE PRINCIPAL CAN REQUIRES 3RD PARTY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT AND VICE VERSA S.184(a) PRINCIPALS RIGHTS SUBJECT TO RIGHTS & LIABILITIES AS BETWEEN AGENT AND 3RD PARTY (S.185) e.g. 3rd partys rights to set-off or counter claim vs principal OR agent PRINCIPAL WHO DISCLOSES HIMSELF BEFORE COMPLETION OF CONTRACT CANNOT ENFORCE CONTRACT VS 3RD PARTY IF 3RD PARTY CAN PROVE THAT IDENTITY OF PRINCIPAL IS MATERIAL S.184(b) RIGHTS OF AGENT AGENT CAN ENFORCE HIS OWN CONTRACT VS 4RD PARTY CANNOT ENFORCE IS HE FALSELY REPRESENTS HIMSLEF AS AGENT IN THE TRANSACTION S.189

DUTIES OF AGENT TOWARDS PRINCIPAL


TO OBEY THE PRINCIPALS INSTRUCTIONS

DUTIES STATED IN CONTRACT OR (IF SILENT) IN THE CONTRACTS ACT

IF NO INSTRUCTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL, MUST ACT ACCORDING TO THE CUSTOMS PREVAILING IN BUSINESS OF THE SAME KIND. TO EXERCISE CARE & DILIGENCE AND USE ALL SKILLS HE POSSESSES IN CARRYING OUT HIS WORK TO RENDER PROPER ACCOUNTS WHEN REQUIRED TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOT TO MAKE SECRET PROFIT FROM THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTY TO PAY HIS PRINCIPAL ALL SUMS RECEIVED ON THIS BEHALF

CANNOT DELEGAT HIS AUTHORITY TO ANOTHER PERSON

TO OBEY THE PRINCIPALS INSTRUCTIONS


S.164 AGENT BOUND TO CONDUCT BUSINESS ACCORDING TO DIRECTIONS OR CUSTOM FAILURE TO OBEYBREACH OF CONTRACT: AGENT LIABLE FOR PRINCIPALS LOSS

AGENT DOES NOT HAVE TO OBEY ILLEGAL INSTRUCTIONS

TURPIN V BILTON FAILURE OF AGENT TO INSURE VESSEL

IN THE ABSENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS, TO ACT ACCORDANCE WITH PREVAILING CUSTOMS


s. 164 & Illustration (b) Any loss or profit accrued to be made good by agent to principal

An agent is bound to conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by the principal, or in the absence of any such directions, according to the custom which prevails in doing business of the same kind at thepiace where the agent conducts the business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principa[ and if any profit accrues, he must account for it

TO EXERCISE CARE & DILIGENCE AND USE ALL SKILLS


S.165: An agent is bound to conduct the business generally possessed by persons engaged in similar business, unless the principal has notice of his want of skill. The agent is always bound to act with reasonable diligence, and use such skills as he possesses; and to make compensation to his principal in respect of the direct consequences of his own neglect, want of skill, or misconduct, but in respect of loss or damage which are indirectly or remotely caused by such neglect, want of skill or misconduct

E.G.SAME SERVICE AS PROFESSIONAL (UNLESS PRINCIPAL ALREADY NOTICES LACK OF SKILL) OR IF SELLING GOODS, TO SELL AT BEST PRICE ANDREWS V RAMSAY & CO

AGENT OBLIGED TO TELL PRINCIPAL OF OTHER BETTER OFFERS EVEN IF CONTRACT ALREADY CONCLUDED KEPPEL V WHEELER

TO RENDER PROPER ACCOUNTS WHEN REQUIRED


S.166: AN AGENT IS BOUND TO RENDER PROPER ACCOUNTS TO HIS PRINCIPAL ON DEMAND
PROPERTY OF THE PRINCIPAL AND AGENT SHOULD NOT BE MIXED

LYELL V KENNEDY AGENT IS BOUND TO KEEP MONEY/PROPERTY SEPARATELY FROM HIS OWN PROPERTY

TO COMMUNICATE WITH PRINCIPAL DURING EMERGENCY/DIFFICULTY

S.167
IT IS THE DUTY OF AN AGENT, IN CASES OF DICCULTY, TO USE ALL REASONABLE DILIGENCE IN COMMUNICATING WITH HIS PRINCIPAL AND IN SEEKING TO OBTAIN HIS INSTRUCTIONS

WHEN?
IN CASESOF EMERGENCY OR DIFFICULTY IF IMPOSSIBE, AGENT CAN USE OWN DISCRETION TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE PRINCIPAL S.142

TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST


AGENT CANNOT BECOME A PARTY TO A CONTRACT WITH PRINCIPAL AMSTRONG V JONES AGENT SOLD HIS OWN SHARES TO PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL HAS RIGHT TO REPUDIATE CONTRACT EVEN IF THE AGENT ACTED FAIRLY WONG MUN WAI V WONG THAM FATT (PRINCIPALS SHARE OF LAND SOLD BELOW MARKET VALUE TO AGENTS WIFE AGENT CANNOT ACT FOR BOTH PARTIES TO A TRASACTION WITHOUT BOTH PARTIES CONSENT FULWOOD V HURLEY (CLAIMED COMMISSION FROM BUYER AND SELLER)

S.169 - 'lf an agent, without knowledge of his principal, deals in the business of the agency on his own account instead of on account of his principal, the principal is entitled to claim from the agent any benefit which may have resulted to him from the transaction'.

PRINCIPAL CAN RECOVER FROM THE AGENT ANY BENEFIIT THE AGENT MAY HAVE OBTAINED EVEN IF THERE IS NO LOSS

AGENT MUST DISCLOSE TO THE PRINCIPAL EVERYTHING RELATING TO THE CONTRACT BUT NOT TO THE OTHER PARTY

CANNOT DISCLOSE THE PRINCIPALS SECRET TO ANOTHER

MUST PAY ALL PROFIT AND MONIES INTO THE PRINCIPALS ACCOUNT

CANNOT MIX WITH AGENTS PROPERTY LYELL V KENNEDY

NOT TO MAKE ANY SECRET PROFIT

SECRET PROFIT
S.168

bribe/ secret commission/any financial advantage which is over and above the commission agreed under the agency contract If the principal does not consent to it, remedies are available (ANDREWS V RAMSAY & CO)

lf an agent deals on his own account in the business of the agency, without first obtaining the consent of his principal and acquainting him with all material circumstances which have come to his own knowledge on the subject, the principal may repudiate the transaction, if the case shows either that any material fact has been dishonestly concealed from him by the agent, or that the dealing of the agent have been disadvantageous to him.

NOT TO MAKE ANY SECRET PROFIT


REMEDIES OF THE PRINCIPAL
may repudiate the contract made by his agent may recover the amount of the bribe (s.169) TAN KIONG HWA V ANDREW S.H. CHONG May refuse to pay agents commission/remuneration May terminate agency for breach of duty BOSTON DEEP SEA FISHING & ICE CO V ANSEL May sue both agent and person who gave bribe for losses suffered MAHESAN V MALAYSIAN GOVERNMENT OFFICERS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY Criminal offence under S.4 Prevention of Corruption Act 1961

TO PAY TO THE PRINCIPAL ALL MONIES RECEIVED ON HIS BEHALF


S.170: AGENT MAY RETAIN, OUT OF ANY SUMS RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPAL, A) ANY SUMS OWED.TO THE AGENT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCES MADE/ EXPENSES INCURRED BY AGENT IN CONDUCTING THE BUSINESS. B) ANY COMMISSION/REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE AGENT.

S.171: SUBJECT TO THE DEDUCTIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 170, THE AGENT IS BOUND TO PAY TO HIS PRINCIPAL ALL SUMS RECEIVED ON HIS ACCOUNT

S.174: AGENTS HAS RIGHT TO RETAIN PRINCIPALS PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION UNTIL HIS REMUNERATION IS PAID

AGENT ONLY HAS RIGHT TO RETAIN ION BUT NOT POWER TO RESELL/SELL THE GOODS UNLESS WITH THE PRINCIPALS CONSENT

CANNOT DELEGATE AUTHORITY


DELEGATUS NON POTEST DELEGARE AGENT CANNOT EMPLOY ANOTHER PERSON TO DO HIS DUTY
EXCEPTION:

WHERE DELEGATION IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE BUSINESS

WHERE THE PRINCIPAL HIMSELF APPROVES THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY (DE BUSSCHE V ALT)

WHERE CUSTOM PERMITS

IT IS PRESUMED FROM CONDUCT THAT AGENT HAS POWER TO DELEGATE

DELEGATED ACT IS PURELY CLERICAL OF ADMINSTERIAL (ALLAM & CO V EUROPA POSTER SERVICES LTD SOLICITORS) (JOHN MCCANN & CO V POW SALES AGENT)

IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL TOWARDS AGENT


TO PAY COMMISSION/REMUNERATION - S.172. IF GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT(WRONGFUL/IMPROPER CONDUCT E.G. BRIBE) NO COMMISSION (ANDREWS V RAMSAY)

CANNOT PURPOSELY STOP OR HINDER AGENT FROM EARNING COMMISSION E.G. PRINCIPAL REFUSES TO ACCEPT CONTRACT MADE BY AGENT OR PRINCIPAL APPOINTS ANOTHER AGENT

INDEMNIFY & REIMBURSE AGENT S.175: ALL COSTS, LOSS LIABILITIES INCURRED IN THE EXERCISE OF THE AGENTS AUTHORITY BORNE BY THE PRINCIPAL (HICHENS, HARRISON , WOOLSTON & C0 V JACKSON & SONS

DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL TOWARDS AGENT


AGENT CAUSES INJURY TO 3RD PARTY IN THE COURSE OF HIS DUTY S.176 ILLUSTRATION (b) AGENT INCURRED LOSSES OR LIABILITIES IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES (KYALL & EVATT V LIM KIM KEAT SALE OF SHARES PURSUANT TO A WILL) AGENT IS INJURED DURING THE COURSE OF HIS DUTIES DUE TO THE PRINCIPALS NEGLIGENCE S.178

WHEN DUTY TO INDEMNIFY ARISES:

TERMINATION OF AGENCY
TERMINATION BY ACT OF PARTIES (AGENT AND PRINCIPAL)

BY OPERATION OF LAW

TERMINATION BY ACT OF THE PARTIES

AGENTS UNILATERAL RENUNCIATION

BY MUTUAL CONSENT S.154

PRINCIPALS UNILATERAL REVOCATION/ RENUNCIATION

UNILATERAL TERMINATION BY PRINCIPAL S.156


REVOCATION CAN BE AT ANY TIME BEFORE AGENT EXERCISES AUTHORITY

CAN BE EXPRESS/IMPLIED (S.160)

REASONABLE NOTICE MUST BE GIVEN (S.159) OTHERWISE PRINCIPAL LIABLE TO DAMAGES

REASONABLE NOTICE DEPENDS ON FACTS OF THE CASE

SOHRABJI V ORIENTAL SECURITY ASSURANCE 3 MONTHS NOTICE INSUFFICIENT TO TERMINATE A 50 YEAR OLD AGENCY

SYARIKAT JAYA V STAR PUBLICATION (M) SDN BHD 6 MONTHS NOTICE SUFFICIENT TO TERMINATE A SOLE AGENCY

TERMINATION EFFECTIVE WHEN COMES TO THE NOTICE OF THE AGENT & 3RD PARTY (S.161)

IF AGENT OR 3RD PARTY DOES NOT KNOW OF THE REVOCATION/ TERMINATION NOT EFFECTIVE (PICHAPPA CHITTY V AH JAH)

FIXED AGENCY EARLY TERMINATION + DAMAGES FOR BALANCE TENURE IF INSUFFICIENT CAUSE S.158

UNILATERAL TERMINATION BY PRINCIPAL EXCEPTIONS


EXCEPTIONS WHERE PRINCIPAL CANNOT REVOKE AGENCY:
READ V SMART V AGENT ALSO HAS ANDERSON AFTER SANDERS BESTA [PLACED INTEREST IN AUTHORITY HAS ON BEHALF OF PROPERTY FIRTH V FIRTH : BEEN PARTLY PRINCIPAL, WHICH IS AGENT PAID EXERCISED BY SUBJECT TO THE CANNOT REVOKE AGENT S.157 FIRST ON BEHALF AUTHORITY AGENCY S.155 OF PRINCIPAL UNTIL PAID FOR

UNILATERAL RENUNCIATION BY AGENT


S.159 : REASONABLE NOTICE TO BE GIVEN TO PRINCIPAL OR MAY BE LIABLE FOR DAMAGES

S.160 : RENUCIATION CAN BE EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED

S.156 : PREMATURE RENUNCIATION BY AGENT MAY BE LIABLE TO DAMAGES

S.154 BY AGENT RENOUNCING THE BUSINESS OR THE RELATIONSHIP OF AGENCY

TERMINATION BY OPERATION OF LAW

BY PERFORMANCE OF CONTRACT S.154

EXPIRY OR LAPSE OF CONTRACT EVEN IF WORK NOT COMPLETED

DEATH OR PRINCIPAL OR AGENT (S.154) PROVISO: (i) No termination if agent has interest in agency property (S.155) (ii) Due notice must have been given to agent (S.161) (iii) agent must take reasonable steps to protect interest of principal (s.162)

INSANITY OF PRINCIPAL OR AGENT (S.154) YONGE V TOYNBEE BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY OF PRINCIPAL EVENT OCCURS WHICH RENDERS THE AGENCY UNLAWFUL