SALE OF GOODS
[Repealed] [Repealed by the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 (Act No. III of 1930),
OF INDEMNITY AND GUARANTEE “Contract of indemnity” defined
- A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a “contract of indemnity”.
A contracts to indemnify B against the consequences of any proceedings which C may take against B in respect of a certain sum of 200 Taka. This is a contract of indemnity.
Rights of indemnity- holder when sued
- The promisee in a contract of indemnity, acting within the scope of his authority, is entitled to recover from the promisor-
- all damages which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter to which the promise to indemnify applies;
- all costs which he may be compelled to pay in any such suit if, in bringing or defending it, he did not contravene the orders of the promisor, and acted as it would have been prudent for him to act in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to bring or defend the suit;
- all sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the promisor, and was one which it would have been prudent for the promisee to make in the absence of any contract of indemnity, or if the promisor authorized him to compromise the suit.
“Contract of guarantee”, “surety”, “principal debtor” and “creditor”
- A “contract of guarantee” is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the “surety”: the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the “principal debtor”, and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the “creditor”. A guarantee may be either oral or written.
Consideration for guarantee
- Anything done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor may be a sufficient consideration to the surety for giving the guarantee.
- B requests A to sell and deliver to him goods on credit. A agrees to do so, provided C will guarantee the payment of the price of the goods. C promises to guarantee the payment in consideration of A’s promise to deliver the goods. This is a sufficient consideration for C’s promise.
- A sells and delivers goods to B. C afterwards requests A to forbear to sue B for the debt for a year, and promises that if he does so, C will pay for them in defaults of payment by B. A agrees to forbear as requested. This is a sufficient consideration for C’s promise.
- A sells and delivers goods to B. C afterwards, without consideration, agrees to pay for them in default of B. The agreement is void.
- The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the contract.
A guarantees to B the payment of a bill of exchange by C, the acceptor. The bill is dishonoured by C. A is liable not only for the amount of the bill but also for any interest and charges which may have become due on it.
- A guarantee which extends to a series of transactions is called a “continuing guarantee”.
- A, in consideration that B will employ C in collecting the rent of B’s zamindari, promises B to be responsible, to the amount of 5,000 Taka, for the due collection and payment by C of those rents. This is a continuing guarantee.
- A guarantees payment to B, a tea-dealer, to the amount of £ 100, for any tea he may from time to time supply to C. B supplies C with tea to above the value of £ 100, and C pay B for it. Afterwards B supplies C with tea to the value of £ 200. C fails to pay. The guarantee given by A was a continuing guarantee, and he is accordingly liable to B to the extent of £ 100.
- A guarantees payment to B of the price of five sacks of flour to be delivered by B to C and to be paid for in a month. B delivers five sacks to C. C pays for them. Afterwards B delivers four sacks to C, which C does not pay for. The guarantee given by A was not a continuing guarantee, and accordingly he is not liable for the price of the four sacks.
Revocation of continuing guarantee
- A continuing guarantee may at any time be revoked by the surety, as to future transactions, by notice to the creditor.
- A, in consideration of B’s discounting, at A’s request, bills of exchange for C, guarantees to B, for twelve months, the due payment of all such bills to the extent of 5,000 Taka. B discounts bills for C to the extent of 2,000 Taka. Afterwards, at the end of three months, A revokes the guarantee. This revocation discharges A from all liability to B for any subsequent discount. But A is liable to B for the 2,000 Taka, on default of C.
- A guarantees to B, to the extent of 10,000 Taka, that C shall pay all the bills that B shall draw upon him. B draws upon C. C accepts the bill. A gives notice of revocation. C dishonours the bill at maturity. A is liable upon his guarantee.
Revocation of continuing guarantee by surety’s death
- The death of the surety operates, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, as a revocation of a continuing guarantee, so far as regards future transactions.
Liability of two persons primarily liable, not affected by arrangement between them that one shall be surety on other’s default
- Where two persons contract with a third person to undertake a certain liability, and also contract with each other that one of them shall be liable only on the default of the other, the third person not being a party to such contract, the liability of each of such two persons to the third person under the first contract is not affected by the existence of the second contract, although such third person may have been aware of its existence.
A and B make a joint and several promissory note to C. A makes it, in fact, as surety for B, and C knows this at the time when the note is made. The fact that A, to the knowledge of C, made the note as surety for B, is no answers to a suit by C against A upon the note.
Discharge of surety by variance in terms of contract
- Any variance, made without the surety’s consents, in the terms of the contract between the principal debtor and the creditor, discharges the surety as to transactions subsequent to the variance.
- A becomes surety to C for B’s conduct as a manager in C’s bank. Afterwards, B and C contract, without A’s consent, that B’s salary shall be raised, and that he shall become liable for one-fourth of the losses on overdrafts. B allows a customer to overdraw, and the bank loses a sum of money. A is discharged from his suretyship by the variance made without his consent, and is not liable to make good this loss.
- A guarantees C against the misconduct of B in an office to which B is appointed by C, and of which the duties are defined by an Act of the Legislature. By a subsequent Act, the nature of the office is materially altered. Afterwards, B misconducts himself. A is discharged by the change from future liability under his guarantee, though the misconduct of B is in respect of a duty not affected by the later Act.
- C agrees to appoint B as his clerk to sell goods at a yearly salary, upon A’s becoming surety to C for B’s duly accounting for moneys received by him as such clerk. Afterwards, without A’s knowledge or consent, C and B agree that B should be paid by a commission on the goods sold by him and not by a fixed salary. A is not liable for subsequent misconduct of B.
- A gives to C a continuing guarantee to the extent of 3,000 Taka for any oil supplied by C to B on credit. Afterwards B becomes embarrassed, and , without the knowledge of A, B and C contract that C shall continue to supply B with oil for ready money, and that the payments shall be applied to the then existing debts between B and C. A is not liable on his guarantee for any goods supplied after this new arrangement.
- C contracts to lend B 5,000 Taka on the 1st March. A guarantees repayment. C pays the 5,000 Taka to B on the 1st January. A is discharged from his liability, as the contract has been varied inasmuch as C might sue B for the money before the 1st of March.
Discharge of surety by release or discharge of principal debtor
- The surety is discharged by any contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the principal debtor is released, or by any act or omission of the creditor, the legal consequence of which is the discharge of the principal debtor.
- A gives a guarantee to C for goods to be supplied by C to B. C supplies goods to B, and afterwards B becomes embarrassed and contracts with his creditors (including C) to assign to them his property in consideration of their releasing him from their demands. Here B is released from his debt by the contract with C, and A is discharged from his suretyship.
- A contracts with B to grow a crop of indigo on A’s land and to deliver it to B at a fixed rate, and C guarantees A’s performance of this contracts. B diverts a stream of water which is necessary for irrigation of A’s land and thereby prevents him from raising the indigo. C is no longer liable on his guarantee.
- A contracts with B for a fixed price to build a house for B within a stipulated time, B supplying the necessary timber. C guarantees A’s performance of the contract. B omits to supply the timber. C is discharged from his suretyship.
Discharge of surety when creditor compounds with, gives time to, or agrees not to sue, principal debtor
- A contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, by which the creditor makes a composition with, or promises to give time to, or not to sue, the principal debtor discharges the surety, unless the surety assents to such contract.
Surety not discharged when agreement made with third person to give time to principal debtor
- Where a contract to give time to the principal debtor is made by the creditor with a third person, and not with the principal debtor, the surety is not discharged.
C, the holder of an overdue bill of exchange drawn by A as surety for B, and accepted by B, contracts with M to give time to B. A is not discharged.
Creditor’s forbearance to sue does not discharge surety
- Mere forbearance on the part of the creditor to sue the principal debtor or to enforce any other remedy against him does not, in the absence of any provision in the guarantee to the contrary, discharge the surety.
B owes to C a debt guaranteed by A. The debt becomes payable. C does not sue B for year after the debt has become payable. A is not discharged from his suretyship.
Release of one co-surety does not discharge others
- Where there are co-sureties, a release by the creditor of one of them does not discharge the others; neither does it free the surety so released from his responsibility to the other sureties.
Discharge of surety by creditor’s act or omission impairing surety’s eventual remedy
- If the creditor does any act which is inconsistent with the rights of the surety, or omits to do any act which his duty to the surety requires him to do, and the eventual remedy of the surety himself against the principal debtor is thereby impaired, the surety is discharged.
- B contracts to build a ship for C for a given sum, to be paid by instalments as the work reaches certain stages. A becomes surety to C for B’s due performance of the contract. C, without the knowledge of A, prepays to B the last two instalments. A is discharged by this prepayment.
- C lends money to B on the security of a joint and several promissory note made in C’s favour by B, and by A as surety for B, together with a bill of sale of B’s furniture, which gives power to C to sell the furniture, and apply the proceeds in discharge of the note. Subsequently, C sells the furniture, but, owing to his misconduct and wilful negligence, only a small price is realized. A is discharged from liability on the note.
- A puts M as apprentice to B, and gives a guarantee to B for M’s fidelity. B promises on his part that he will, at least once a month, see M make up the cash. B omits to see this done as promised, and M embezzles. A is not liable to B on his guarantee.
Rights of surety on payment or performance
- Where a guaranteed debt has become due, or default of the principal debtor to perform a guaranteed duty has taken place, the surety, upon payment or performance of all that he is liable for, is invested with all the rights which the creditor had against the principal debtor.
Surety’s right to benefit of creditor’s securities
- A surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has against the principal debtor at the time when the contract of suretyship is entered into, whether the surety knows of the existence of such security or not; and, if the creditor loses, or, without the consent of the surety, parts with such security, the surety is discharged to the extent of the value of the security.
- C advances to B, his tenant, 2,000 Taka on the guarantee of A.C has also, a further security for the 2,000 Taka by a mortgage of B’s furniture. C cancels the mortgage. B becomes insolvent, and C sues A on his guarantee. A is discharged from liability to the amount of the value of the furniture.
- C, a creditor, whose advance to B is secured by a decree, receives also a guarantee for that advance from A. C afterwards takes B’s goods in execution under the decree, and then, without the knowledge of A, withdraws the execution. A is discharged.
- A, as surety for B, makes a bond jointly with B to C, to secure a loan from C to B. Afterwards, C obtains from B a further security for the same debt. Subsequently, C gives up the further security. A is not discharged.
Guarantee obtained by misrepresentation invalid
- Any guarantee which has been obtained by means of misrepresentation made by the creditor, or with his knowledge and assent, concerning a material part of the transaction, is invalid.
Guarantee obtained by concealment invalid
- Any guarantee which the creditor has obtained by means of keeping silence as to material circumstances is invalid.
- A engages B as clerk to collect money for him. B fails to account for some of his receipts, and A in consequence calls upon him to furnish security his duly accounting. C gives his guarantee for B’s duly accounting. A does not acquaint C with B’s previous conduct. B afterwards makes default. The guarantee is invalid.
- A guarantees to C payment for iron to be supplied by him to B to the amount of 2,000 tons. B and C have privately agreed that B should pay five Taka per ton beyond the market price, such excess to be applied in liquidation of an old debt. This agreement is concealed from A. A is not liable as a surety.
Guarantee on contract that creditor shall not act on it until co-surety joins
- Where a person gives a guarantee upon a contract that the creditor shall not act upon it until another person has joined in it as co-surety, the guarantee is not valid if that other person does not join.
Implied promise to indemnify surety
- In every contract of guarantee there is an implied promise by the principal debtor to indemnify the surety; and the surety is entitled to recover from the principal debtor whatever sum he has rightfully paid under the guarantee, but no sums which he has paid wrongfully.
- B is indebted to C, and A is surety for the debt. C demands payment from A, and on his refusal sues him for the amount. A defends the suit, having reasonable grounds for doing so, but is compelled to pay the amount of the debt with costs. He can recover from B the amount paid by him for costs, as well as the principal debt.
- C lends B a sum of money, and A, at the request of B, accepts a bill of exchange drawn by B upon A to secure the amount. C, the holder of the bill, demands payment of it from A, and, on A’s refusal to pay, sues him upon the bill. A, not having reasonable grounds for so doing, defends the suit, and has to pay the amount of the bill and costs. He can recover from B the amount of the bill, but not the sum paid for costs, as there was no real ground for defending the action.
- A guarantees to C, to the extent of 2,000 Taka, payment for rice to be supplied by C to B. C supplies to B rice to a less amount than 2,000 Taka, but obtains from A payment of the sum of 2,000 Taka in respect of the rice supplied. A cannot recover from B more than the price of the rice actually supplied.
Co-sureties liable to contribute equally
- Where two or more persons are co-sureties for the same debt or duty, either jointly or severally, and whether under the same or different contracts, and whether with or without the knowledge of each other, the co-sureties, in the absence of any contract to the contrary, are liable, as between themselves, to pay each an equal share of the whole debt, or of that part of it which remains unpaid by the principal debtor.
(a) A, B and C are sureties to D for the sum of 3,000 Taka lent to E. E makes default in payment. A, B and C are liable, as between themselves, to pay 1,000 Taka each.
(b) A, B and C are sureties to D for the sum of 1,000 Taka lent to E, and there is a contract between A, B and C that A is to be responsible to the extent of one-quarter, B to the extent of one-quarter and C to the extent of one-half. E makes default in payment. As between the sureties, A is liable to pay 250 Taka, B 250 Taka and C 500 Taka.
Liability of co-sureties bound in different sums
- Co-sureties who are bound in different sums are liable to pay equally as far as the limits of their respective obligations permit.
- A, B and C, as sureties for D, enter into three several bonds, each in a different penalty, namely, A in the penalty of 10,000 Taka, B in that of 20,000 Taka, C in that of 40,000 Taka, conditioned for D’s duly accounting to E. D makes default to the extent of 30,000 Taka. A, B and C are each liable to pay 10,000 Taka.
- A, B and C, as sureties for D, enter into three several bonds, each in a different penalty, namely, A in the penalty of 10,000 Taka, B in that of 20,000 Taka, C in that of 40,000 Taka, conditioned for D’s duly accounting to E.D makes default to the extent of 40,000 Taka. A is liable to pay 10,000 Taka, and B and C 15,000 Taka each.
- A, B and C, as sureties for D, enter into three several bonds, each in a different penalty, namely, A in the penalty of 10,000 Taka, B in that of 20,000 Taka, C in that of 40,000 Taka, conditioned for D’s duly accounting to E. D makes default to the extent of 70,000 Taka. A, B and C have to pay each the full penalty of his bond.
“Bailment”, “bailor”, and “bailee” defined
- A “bailment” is the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, upon a contract that they shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person delivering the goods is called the “bailor”. The person to whom they are delivered is called the “bailee”.
Explanation – If a person already in possession of the goods of another contracts to hold them as a bailee, he thereby becomes the bailee, and the owner becomes the bailor, of such goods although they may not have been delivered by way of bailment.
Delivery to bailee how made
- The delivery to the bailee may be made by doing anything which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the intended bailee or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf.
Bailor’s duty to disclose faults in goods bailed
- The bailor is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed, of which the bailor is aware, and which materially interfere with the use of them, or expose the bailee to extraordinary risks; and if he does not make such disclosure, he is responsible for damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults.
If the goods are bailed for hire, the bailor is responsible for such damage, whether he was or was not aware of the existence of such faults in the goods bailed.
- A lends a horse, which he knows to be vicious, to B. He does not disclose the fact that the horse is vicious. The horse runs away. B is thrown and injured. A is responsible to B for damage sustained.
- A hires a carriage of B. The carriage is unsafe, though B is not aware of it, and A is injured. B is responsible to A for the injury.
Care to be taken by bailee
- In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quality and value as the goods bailed.
Bailee when not liable for loss, etc, of thing bailed
- The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in section 151.
Termination of bailment by bailee’s act inconsistent with conditions
- A contract of bailment is avoidable at the option of the bailor, if the bailee does any act with regard to the goods bailed, inconsistent with the conditions of the bailment.
A lets to B, for hire, a horse for his own riding. B drives the horse in his carriage. This is, at the option of A, a termination of the bailment.
Liability of bailee making unauthorised use of goods bailed
- If the bailee makes any use of the goods bailed, which is not according to the conditions of the bailment, he is liable to make compensation to the bailor for any damage arising to the goods from or during such use of them.
- A lends a horse to B for his own riding only. B allows C, a member of his family, to ride the horse. C rides with care, but the horse accidentally falls and is injured. B is liable to make compensation to A for the injury done to the horse.
- A hires a horse in Dhaka] from B expressly to march to Tangail. A rides with due care, but marches to Narayanganj] instead. The horse accidentally falls and is injured. A is liable to make compensation to B for the injury to the horse.
Effect of mixture, with bailor’s consent, of his goods with bailee’s
- If the bailee, with the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods, the bailor and the bailee shall have an interest, in proportion to their respective shares, in the mixture thus produced.
Effect of mixture, without bailor’s consent, when the goods can be separated
- If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods, and the goods can be separated or divided, the property in the goods remains in the parties respectively; but the bailee is bound to bear the expense of separation or division, and any damage arising from the mixture.
A bails 100 bales of cotton marked with a particular mark to B. B, without A’s consent, mixes the 100 bales with other bales of his own, bearing a different mark. A is entitled to have his 100 bales returned, and B is bound to bear all the expense incurred in the separation of the bales, and any other incidental damage.
Effect of mixture, without bailor’s consent, when the goods cannot be separated
- If the bailee, without the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods, in such a manner that it is impossible to separate the goods bailed from the other goods and deliver them back, the bailor is entitled to be compensated by the bailee for the loss of the goods.
A bails a barrel of Cape flour worth Taka 45 to B. B, without A’s consent, mixes the flour with country flour of his own, worth only Taka 25 a barrel. B must compensate A for the loss of his flour.
Repayment by bailor of necessary expenses
- Where, by the conditions of the bailment, the goods are to be kept or to be carried, or to have work done upon them by the bailee for the bailor, and
the bailee is to receive no remuneration, the bailor shall repay to the bailee the necessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of the bailment.
Restoration of goods lent gratuitously
- The lender of a thing for use may at any time require its return, if the loan was gratuitous, even though he lent it for a specified time or purpose. But, if, on the faith of such loan made for a specified time or purpose, the borrower has acted in such a manner that the return of the thing lent before the time agreed upon would cause him loss exceeding the benefit actually derived by him from the loan, the lender must, if he compels the return, indemnify the borrower for the amount in which the loss so occasioned exceeds the benefit so derived.
Return of goods bailed on expiration of time or accomplishment of purpose
- It is the duty of the bailee to return, or deliver according to the bailor’s direction, the goods bailed, without demand, as soon as the time for which they were bailed has expired, or the purpose for which they were bailed has accomplished.
Bailee’s responsibility when goods are not duly returned
- If, by the default of the bailee, the goods are not returned, delivered or tendered at the proper time, he is responsible to the bailor for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods from that time.
Termination of gratuitous bailment by death
- A gratuitous bailment is terminated by the death either of the bailor or of the bailee.
Bailor entitled to increase or profit from goods bailed
- In the absence of any contract to the contrary, the bailee is bound to deliver to the bailor, or according to his directions, any increase or profit which may have accrued from the goods bailed.
A leaves a cow in the custody of B to be taken care of. The cow has a calf. B is bound to deliver the calf as well as the cow to A.
Bailor’s responsibility to bailee
- The bailor is responsible to the bailee for any loss which the bailee may sustain by reason that the bailor was not entitled to make the bailment, or to receive back the goods or to give directions, respecting them.
Bailment by several joint owners
- If several joint owners of goods bail them, the bailee may deliver them back to, or according to the directions of, one joint owner without the consent of all, in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.
Bailee not responsible on re-delivery to bailor without title
- If the bailor has no title to the goods, and the bailee, in good faith, delivers them back to, or according to the directions of, the bailor, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery.
Right of third person claiming goods bailed
- If the person, other than the bailor, claims goods bailed, he may apply to the Court to stop the delivery of the goods to the bailor, and to decide the title to the goods.
Right of finder of goods; may sue for specific reward offered
- The finder of goods has no right to sue the owner for compensation for trouble and expense voluntarily incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find out the owner; but he may retain the goods against the owner until he receives such compensation; and, where the owner has offered a specific reward for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it.
When finder of thing commonly on sale may sell it
- When a thing which is commonly the subject of sale is lost, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or if he refuses, upon demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder may sell it-
- when the thing is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its
- when the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount to two-thirds of its value.
Bailee’s particular lien
- Where the bailee has, in accordance with the purpose of the bailment, rendered any service involving the exercise of labour or skill in respect of the goods bailed, he has, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, a right to retain such goods until he receives due remuneration for the services he has rendered in respect of them.
- A delivers a rough diamond to B, A jeweller, to be cut and polished, which is accordingly done. B is entitled to retain the stone till he is paid for the services he has rendered.
- A gives cloth to B, a tailor, to make into a coat. B promises A to deliver the coat as soon as it is finished, and to give a three months’ credit for the price. B is not entitled to retain the coat until he is paid.
General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy- brokers
- Bankers, factors, wharfingers, advocate of the Supreme Court] and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain, as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect.
Bailments Of Pledges
“Pledge”, “Pawnor” and “Pawnee” defined
- The bailment of goods as security for payment of a debt or performance of a promise is called “pledge”. The bailor is in this case called the “pawnor”. The bailee is called the “pawnee”.
Pawnee’s right of retainer
- The pawnee may retain the goods pledged, not only for payment of the debt or the performance of the promise, but for the interest of the debt, and all necessary expenses incurred by him in respect of the possession or for the preservation of the goods pledged.
Pawnee not to retain for debt or promise other than that for which goods pledged Presumption in case of subsequent advances
- The pawnee shall not, in the absence of a contract to that effect retain the goods pledged for any debt or promise other than the debt or promise for which they are pledged; but such contract, in the absence of anything to the contrary, shall be presumed in regard to subsequent advances made by the pawnee.
Pawnee’s right as to extraordinary expenses incurred
- The pawnee is entitled to receive from the pawnor extraordinary expenses incurred by him for the preservation of the goods pledged.
Pawnee’s right where pawnor makes default
- If the pawnor makes default in payment of the debt, or performance, at the stipulated time of the promise, in respect of which the goods were pledged, the pawnee may bring a suit against the pawnor upon the debt or promise, and retain the goods pledged as a collateral security; or he may sell the thing pledged, on giving the pawnor reasonable notice of the sale.
If the proceeds of such sale are less than the amount due in respect of the debt or promise, the pawnor is still liable to pay the balance. If the proceeds of the sale are greater than the amount so due, the pawnee shall pay over the surplus to the pawnor.
Defaulting pawnor’s right to redeem
- If a time is stipulated for the payment of the debt, or performance of the promise, for which the pledge is made, and the pawnor makes default in payment of the debt or performance of the promise at the stipulated time, he may redeem the goods pledged at any subsequent time before the actual sale of them; but he must, in that case, pay, in addition, any expenses which have arisen from his default.
Pledge by mercantile agent
- Where a mercantile agent is, with the consent of the owner, in possession of goods or the documents of title to goods, any pledge made by him, when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent, shall be as valid as if he were expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to make the same; provided that the pawnee acts in good faith and has not at the time of the pledge notice that the pawnor has not authority to pledge.
Pledge by person in possession under voidable contract
178A. When the pawnor has obtained possession of the goods pledged by him under a contract voidable under section 19 or section 19A, but the contract has not been rescinded at the time of the pledge, the pawnee acquires a good title to the goods, provided he acts in good faith and without notice of the pawnor’s defect of title.]
Pledge where pawnor has only a limited interest
- Where a person pledges goods in which he has only a limited interest, the pledge is valid to the extent of that interest.
Suit by bailor or bailee against wrong-doer
- If a third person wrongfully deprives the bailee of the use or possession of the goods bailed, or does them any injury, the baliee is entitled to use such remedies as the owner might have used in the like case if no bailment had been made; and either the bailor or the bailee may bring a suit against a third person for such deprivation or injury.
Apportionment of relief or compensation obtained by such suits
- Whatever is obtained by way of relief or compensation in any such suit shall, as between the bailor and the bailee, be dealt with according to their respective interests.
Appointment and Authority of Agents
“Agent” and “principal” defined
- 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”.
Who may employ agent
- Any person who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, may employ an agent.
Who may be an agent
- As between the principal and third persons any person may become an agent, but no person who is not of the age of majority and of sound mind can become an agent, so as to be responsible to his principal according to the provisions in that behalf herein contained.
Consideration not necessary
- No consideration is necessary to create an agency.
Agent’s authority may be expressed or implied
- The authority of an agent may be expressed or implied.
Definitions of express and implied authority
- 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 inferred from the circumstances of the case; and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case.
A owns a shop in Mymensingh, living himself in Dhaka, and visiting the shop occasionally. The shop is managed by B, and he is in the habit of ordering goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop, and of paying for them out of A’s funds with A’s knowledge. B has an implied authority from A to order goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop.
Extent of agent’s authority
- An agent having an authority to do an act has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act.
An agent having an authority to carry on a business has authority to do every lawful thing necessary for the purpose, or usually done in the course of conducting such business.
- A is employed by B, residing in London, to recover at Chittagong a debt due to B. A may adopt any legal process necessary for the purpose of recovering the debt, and may give a valid discharge for the same.
- A constitutes B his agent to carry on his business of a ship-builder. B may purchase timber and other materials, and hire workmen, for the purposes of carrying on the business.
Agent’s authority in an 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, in his own case, under similar circumstances.
- An agent for sale may have goods repaired if it be necessary.
- A consigns provisions to B at Chittagong, with directions to send them immediately to C at Dhaka. B may sell the provisions at Chittagong, if they will not bear the journey to Dhaka without spoiling.
When agent cannot delegate
- An agent cannot lawfully employ another to perform acts which he has expressly or impliedly undertaken to perform personally, unless by the ordinary custom of trade a sub-agent may, or, from the nature of the agency, a sub-agent must, be employed.
- A “sub-agent” is a person employed by, and acting under the control of, the original agent in the business of the agency.
Representation of principal by sub-agent properly appointed
- Where a sub-agent is properly appointed, the principal is, so far as regards third persons, represented by the sub-agent, and is bound by and responsible for his acts, as if he were an agent originally appointed by the principal.
Agent’s responsibility for sub-agent
The agent is responsible to the principal for the acts of the sub-agent.
The sub-agent is responsible for his acts to the agent, but not to the principal, except in case of fraud or wilful wrong.
Agent’s responsibility for sub-agent appointed without authority
- Where an agent, without having authority to do so, has appointed a person to act as a sub-agent, the agent stands towards such person in the relation of a principal to an agent, and is responsible for his acts both to the principal and to third persons; the principal is not represented by or responsible for the acts of the person so employed, nor is that person responsible to the principal.
Relation between principal and person duly appointed by agent to act in business of agency
- Where an agent, holding an express or implied authority to name another person to act for the principal in the business of the agency, has named another person accordingly, such person is not a sub-agent, but an agent of the principal for such part of the business of the agency as is entrusted to him.
- A directs B, his solicitor, to sell his estate by auction, and to employ an auctioneer for the purpose. B names C, an auctioneer, to conduct the sale. C is not a sub-agent, but is A’s agent for the conduct of the sale.
- A authorizes B, a merchant in Chittagong, to recover the moneys due to A from C & Co. B instructs D, a solicitor, to take legal proceedings against C & Co. for the recovery of the money. D is not a sub-agent, but is solicitor for A.
Agent’s duty in naming such person
- In selecting such agent for his principal, an agent is bound to exercise the same amount of discretion as a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in his own case; and, if he does this, he is not responsible to the principal for the acts or negligence of the agent so selected.
- A instructs B, a merchant, to buy a ship for him. B employs a ship surveyor of good reputation to choose a ship for A. The surveyor makes the choice negligently and the ship turns out to be unseaworthy and is lost. B is not, but the surveyor is, responsible to A.
- A consigns goods to B, a merchant, for sale. B in due course, employs an auctioneer in good credit to sell the goods of A, and allows the auctioneer to receive the proceeds of the sale. The auctioneer afterwards becomes insolvent without having accounted for the proceeds. B is not responsible to A for the proceeds.
Right of person as to acts done for him without his authority Effect of ratification
- Where acts are done by one person on behalf of another, but without his knowledge or authority, he may elect to ratify or to disown such acts. If he ratify them, the same effects will follow as if they had been performed by his authority.
Ratification may be expressed or implied
- Ratification may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of the person on whose behalf the acts are done.
- A, without authority, buys goods for B. Afterwards B sells them to C on his own account; B’s conduct implies a ratification of the purchase made for him by A.
- A, without B’s authority, lends B’s money to C. Afterwards B accepts interest on the money from C. B’s conduct implies a ratification of the loan.
Knowledge requisite for valid ratification
- No valid ratification can be made by a person whose knowledge of the facts of the case is materially defective.
Effect of ratifying unauthorized act forming part of a transaction
- A person ratifying any unauthorized act done on his behalf ratifies the whole of the transaction of which such act formed a part.
Ratification of unauthorized act cannot injure third person
- An act done by one person on behalf of another, without such other person’s authority, which, if done with authority, would have the effect of subjecting a third person to damages, or of terminating any right or interest of a third person, cannot, by ratification, be made to have such effect.
- A, not being authorized thereto by B, demands, on behalf of B, the delivery of a chattle, the property of B, from C, who is in possession of it. This demand cannot be ratified by B, so as to make C liable for damages for his refusal to deliver.
- A holds a lease from B, terminable on three months’ notice. C, an unauthorized person, gives notice of termination to A. The notice cannot be ratified by B, so as to be binding on A.
Revocation of Authority
Termination of agency
- An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency; or by the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind; or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time being in force for the relief of insolvent debtors.
Termination of agency where agent has an interest in subject-matter
- Where the agent has himself an interest in the property which forms the subject-matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest.
(a) A gives authority to B to sell A’s land, and to pay himself, out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death.
(b) A consigns 1,000 bales of cotton to B, who has made advances to him on such cotton, and desires B to sell the cotton, and to repay himself, out of the price, the amount of his own advances. A cannot revoke this authority, nor is it terminated by his insanity or death.
When principal may revoke agent’s authority
- The principal may, save as is otherwise provided by the last preceding section, revoke the authority given to his agent at any time before the authority has been exercised so as to bind the principal.
Revocation where authority has been partly exercised
- The principal cannot revoke the authority given to his agent after the authority has been partly exercised so far as regards such acts and obligations as arise from acts already done in the agency.
(a) A authorizes B to buy 1,000 bales of cotton on account of A, and to pay for it out of A’s money remaining in B’s hands. B buys 1,000 bales of cotton in his own name, so as to make himself personally liable for the price. A cannot revoke B’s authority so far as regards payment for the cotton.
(b) A authorizes B to buy 1,000 bales of cotton on account of A, and to pay for it out of A’s money remaining in B’s hands. B buys 1,000 bales of cotton in A’s name and so as not to render himself personally liable for the price. A can revoke B’s authority to pay for the cotton.
Compensation for revocation by principal or renunciation by agent
- Where there is an express or implied contract that the agency should be continued for any period of time, the principal must make compensation to the agent, or the agent to the principal, as the case may be, for any previous revocation or renunciation of the agency without sufficient cause.
Notice of revocation or renunciation
- Reasonable notice must be given of such revocation or renunciation; otherwise the damage thereby resulting to the principal or the agent, as the case may be, must be made good to the one by the other.
Revocation and renunciation may be expressed or implied
- Revocation and renunciation may be expressed or may be implied in the conduct of the principal or agent respectively.
A empowers B to let A’s house. Afterwards A lets it himself. This is an implied revocation of B’s authority.
When termination of agent’s authority takes effect as to agent, and as to third persons
- The termination of the authority of an agent does not, so far as regards the agent, take effect before it becomes known to him, or, so far as regards third persons, before it becomes known to them.
(a) A directs B to sell goods for him, and agrees to give B five per cent. commission on the price fetched by the goods. A afterwards, by letter, revokes B’s authority. B, after the letter is sent, but before he receives it, sells the goods for 100 Taka. The sale is binding on A, and B is entitled to five Taka as his commission.
- A, at Dhaka, by letter, directs B to sell from him some cotton lying in a warehouse in Rajshahi, and afterwards, by letter, revokes his authority to sell, and directs B to send the cotton to Dhaka. B, after receiving the second letter, enters into a contract with C, who knows of the first letter, but not of the second, for the sale to him of the cotton. C pays B the money, with which B absconds. C’s payment is good as against A.
- A directs B, his agent, to pay certain money to C. A dies, and D takes out probate to his will. B, after A’s death, but before hearing of it, pays the money to C. The payment is good as against D, the executor.
Agent’s duty on termination of agency by principal’s death or insanity
- When an agency is terminated by the principal dying or becoming of unsound mind, the agent is bound to take, on behalf of the representatives of his late principal, all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of the interests entrusted to him.
Termination of sub-agent’s authority
- The termination of the authority of an agent causes the termination (subject to the rules herein contained regarding the termination of an agent’s authority) of the authority of all sub-agents appointed by him.
Agent’s Duty to Principal
Agent’s duty in conducting principal’s business
- 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 the place where the agent conducts such business. When the agent acts otherwise, if any loss be sustained, he must make it good to his principal, and, if any profit accrues, he must account for it.
(a) A, an agent engaged in carrying on for B a business, in which it is the custom to invest from time to time, at interest, the moneys which may be in hand, omits to make such investment. A must make good to B the interest usually obtained by such investments.
(b) B, a broker, in whose business it is not the custom to sell on credit, sells goods of A on credit to C, whose credit at the time was very high. C, before payment, becomes insolvent. B must make good the loss to A.
Skill and diligence required from agent
- An agent is bound to conduct the business of the agency with as much skill as is 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 to use such skill 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 not in respect of loss or damage which are indirectly or remotely caused by such neglect, want of skill or misconduct.
- A, a merchant in Chittagong has an agent, B, in London to whom a sum of money is paid on A’s account, with orders to remit. B retains the money for a considerable time. A, in consequence of not receiving the money, becomes insolvent. B is liable for the money and interest from the day on which it ought -to have been paid, according to the usual rate, and for any further direct loss but not further.-as e.g., by variation of rate of exchange
- A, an agent for the sale of goods, having authority to sell on credit, sells to B on credit, without making the proper and usual enquiries as to the solvency of B. B, at the time of such sale, is insolvent. A must make compensation to his principal in respect of any loss thereby sustained.
- A, an insurance-broker employed by B to effect an insurance on a ship, omits to see that the usual clauses are inserted in the policy. The ship is afterwards lost. In consequence of the omission of the clauses nothing can be recovered from the underwriters. A is bound to make good the loss to B.
- A, a merchant in England, directs B, his agent at Chittagong, who accepts the agency, to send him 100 bales of cotton by a certain ship. B, having it in his power to send the cotton, omits to do so. The ship arrives safely in England. Soon after her arrival the price of cotton rises. B is bound to make good to A the profit which he might have made by the 100 bales of cotton at the time the ship arrived, but not any profit he might have made by the subsequent rise.
- An agent is bound to render proper accounts to his principal on demand.
Right of principal when agent deals, on his own account, in business of agency without principal’s consent
- If 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 dealings of the agent have been disadvantageous to him.
(a) A directs B to sell A’s estate. B buys the estate for himself in the name of C. A, on discovering that B has bought the estate for himself, may repudiate the sale, if he can show that B has dishonestly concealed any material fact, or that the sale has been disadvantageous to him.
(b) A directs B to sell A’s estate. B, on looking over the estate before selling it, finds a mine on the estate which is unknown to A. B informs A that he wishes to buy the estate for himself, but conceals the discovery of the mine. A allows B to buy in ignorance of the existence of the mine. A, on discovering that B knew of the mine at the time he bought the estate, may either repudiate or adopt the sale at his option.
Principal’s right to benefit gained by agent dealing on his own account in business of agency
- If an agent, without the 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.
A directs B, his agent, to buy a certain house for him. B tells A it cannot be bought, and buys the house for himself. A may, on discovering that B has bought the house, compel him to sell it to A at the price he gave for it.
Agent’s right of retainer out of sums received on principal’s account
- An agent may retain, out of any sums received on account of the principal in the business of the agency, all moneys due to himself in respect of advances made or expenses properly incurred by him in conducting such business, and also such remuneration as may be payable to him for acting as agent.
Agent’s duty to pay sums received for principal
- Subject to such deductions, the agent is bound to pay to his principal all sums received on his account.
When agent’s remuneration becomes due
- In the absence of any special contract, payment for the performance of any act is not due to the agent until the completion of such act; but an agent may detain moneys received by him on account of goods sold, although the whole of the goods consigned to him for sale may not have been sold, or although the sale may not be actually complete.
Agent not entitled to remuneration for business mis-conducted
- An agent who is guilty of misconduct in the business of the agency is not entitled to any remuneration in respect of that part of the business which he has misconducted.
(a) A employs B to recover 1,00,000 Taka from C, and to lay it out on good security. B recovers the 1,00,000 Taka and lays out 90,000 Taka on good security, but lays out 10,000 Taka on security which he ought to have known to be bad, whereby A loses 2,000 Taka. B is entitled to remuneration for recovering the 1,00,000 Taka and for investing the 90,000 Taka. He is not entitled to any remuneration for investing the 10,000 Taka, and he must make good the 2,000 Taka to B.
(b) A employs B to recover 1,000 Taka from C. Through B’s misconduct the money is not recovered. B is entitled to no remuneration for his services, and must make good the loss.
Agent’s lien on principal’s property
- In the absence of any contract to the contrary, an agent is entitled to retain goods, papers and other property, whether moveable or immoveable, of the principal received by him, until the amount due to himself for commission, disbursements and services in respect of the same has been paid or accounted for to him.
Principal’s Duty to Agent
Agent to be indemnified against consequences of lawful acts
- The employer of an agent is bound to indemnify him against the consequences of all lawful acts done by such agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him.
- B, at Singapur, under instructions from A of Chittagong, contracts with C to deliver certain goods to him. A does not send the goods to B, and C sues B for breach of contract. B informs A of the suit, and A authorizes him to defend the suit. B defends the suit, and is compelled to pay damages and costs, and incurs expenses. A is liable to B for such damages, costs and expenses.
- B, a broker at Chittagong, by the orders of A, a merchant there contracts with C for the purchases of 10 casks of oil for A. Afterwards A refuses to receive the oil, and C sues B. B informs A, who repudiates the contract altogether. B defends, but unsuccessfully, and has to pay damages and costs and incurs expenses. A is liable to B for such damages, costs and expenses.
Agent to be indemnified against consequences of acts done in good faith
- Where one person employs another to do an act, and the agent does the act in good faith, the employer is liable to indemnify the agent against the consequences of that act, though it cause an injury to the rights of third persons.
(a) A, a decree-holder and entitled to execution of B’s goods, requires the officer of the Court to seize certain goods, representing them to be the goods of B. The officer seizes the goods, and is sued by C, the true owner of the goods. A is liable to indemnify the officer for the sum which he is compelled to pay to C, in consequence of obeying A’s directions.
(b) B, at the request of A, sells goods in the possession of A, but which A had no right to dispose of. B does not know this, and hands over the proceeds of the sale to A. Afterwards C, the true owner of the goods, sues B and recovers the value of the goods and costs. A is liable to indemnify B for what he has been compelled to pay to C and for B’s own expenses.
Non-liability of employer of agent to do a criminal act
- Where one person employs another to do an act which is criminal, the employer is not liable to the agent, either upon an express or an implied promise, to indemnify him against the consequences of that Act.
- A employs B to beat C, and agrees to indemnify him against all consequences of act. B thereupon beats C, and has to pay damages to C for so doing. A is not liable to indemnify B for those damages.
- B, the proprietor of a newspaper, publishes, at A’s request, liable upon C in the paper, and A agrees to indemnify B against the consequences of the publication, and all costs and damages of any action in respect thereof. B is sued by C and has to pay damages, and also incurs expenses. A is not liable to B upon the indemnity.
Compensation to agent for injury caused by principal’s neglect
- The principal must make compensation to his agent in respect of injury caused to such agent by the principal’s neglect or want of skill.
A employs B as a bricklayer in building a house, and puts up the scaffolding himself. The scaffolding is unskilfully put up, and B is in consequence hurt. A must make compensation to B.
Effect of agency on contract with third persons
Enforcement and consequences of agent’s contracts
- Contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner, and will have the same legal consequences, as if the contracts had been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person.
- A buys goods from B, knowing that he is an agent for their sale, but not knowing who is the principal. B’s principal is the person entitled to claim from A the price of the goods, and A cannot, in a suit by the principal, set off against that claim a debt due to himself from B.
- A, being B’s agent with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B.
Principal how far bound, when agent exceeds authority
- When an agent does more than he is authorized to do, and when the part of what he does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority is binding as between him and his principal.
A, being owner of a ship and cargo, authorizes B to procure an insurance for 4,000 Taka on the ship. B procures a policy for 4,000 Taka on the ship, and another for the like sum on the cargo. A is bound to pay the premium for the policy on the ship, but not the premium for the policy on the cargo.
Principal not bound when excess of agent’s authority is not separable
- Where an agent does more than he is authorized to do, and what does beyond the scope of his authority cannot be separated from what is within it, the principal is not bound to recognize the transaction.
A authorizes B to buy 500 sheep for him. B buys 500 sheep and 200 lambs for one sum of 6,000 Taka. A may repudiate the whole transaction.
Consequences of notice given to agent
- Any notice given to or information obtained by the agent, provided it be given or obtained in the course of the business transacted by him for the principal, shall, as between the principal and third parties, have the same legal consequences as if it had been given to or obtained by the principal.
(a) A is employed by B to buy from C certain goods, of which C is the apparent owner, and buys them accordingly. In the course of the treaty for the sale, A learns that the goods really belonged to D, but B is ignorant of that fact, B is not entitled to set off a debt owing to him from C against the price of the goods.
(b) A is employed by B to buy from C goods of which C is the apparent owner. A was, before he was so employed, a servant of C, and then learnt that goods really belonged to D, but B is ignorant of that fact. In spite of the knowledge of his agent, B may set off against the price of the goods a debt owing to him from C.
Agent cannot personally enforce, nor be bound by, contracts on behalf of principal
- In the absence of any contract to that effect, an agent cannot personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them.
Presumption of contract to contrary
Such a contract shall be presumed to exist in the following cases:-
- where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad:
- where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal:
- where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued.
Rights of parties to a contract made by agent not disclosed
- If an agent makes a contract with a person who neither knows, nor has reason to suspect, that he is an agent, his principal may require the performance of the contract; but the other contracting party has, as against the principal, the same rights as he would have had as against the agent if the agent had been principal.If the principal discloses himself before the contract is completed, the other contracting party may refuse to fulfil the contract, if he can show that, if he had known who was the principal in the contract, or if he had known that the agent was not a principal, he would not have entered into the contract.
Performance of contract with agent supposed to be principal
- Where one man makes a contract with another, neither knowing nor having reasonable ground to suspect that the other is an agent, the principal, if he requires the performance of the contract, can only obtain such performance subject to the rights and obligations subsisting between the agent and the other party to the contract.
A, who owes 500 Taka to B, sells 1,000 Taka worth of rice to B. A is acting as agent for C in the transaction, but B has no knowledge nor reasonable ground of suspicion that such is the case. C cannot compel B to take the rice without allowing him to set off A’s debt.
Right of person dealing with agent personally liable
- In cases where the agent is personally liable, a person dealing with him may hold either him or his principal, or both of them, liable.
A enters into a contract with B to sell him 100 bales of cotton, and afterwards discovers that B was acting as agent for C. A may sue either B or C, or both, for the price of the cotton.
Consequence of inducing agent or principal to act on belief that principal or agent will be held exclusively liable
- When a person who has made a contract with an agent induces the agent to act upon the belief that the principal only will be held liable, or induces the principal to act upon the belief that the agent only will be held liable, he cannot afterwards hold liable the agent or principal respectively.
Liability of pretended agent
- A person untruly representing himself to be the authorized agent of another, and thereby inducing a third person to deal with him as such agent, is liable, if his alleged employer does not ratify his acts, to make compensation to the other in respect of any loss or damage which he has incurred by so dealing.
Person falsely contracting as agent not entitled to performance
- A person with whom a contract has been entered into in the character of agent is not entitled to require the performance of it if he was in reality acting, not as agent, but on his own account.
Liability of principal inducing belief that agent’s unauthorized acts were authorized
- When an agent has, without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations if he has by his words or conduct induced such third persons to believe that such acts and obligations were within the scope of the agent’s authority.
- A consigns goods to B for sale, and gives him instructions not to sell under a fixed price. C, being ignorant of B’s instructions, enters into a contract with B to buy the goods at a price lower than the reserved price. A is bound by the contract.
- A entrusts B with negotiable instruments endorsed in blank. B sells them to C in violation of private orders from A. The sale is good.
Effect, on agreement, of misrepresentation or fraud by agent
- Misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents acting in the course of their business for their principals, have the same effect on agreements made by such agents as if such misrepresentations or frauds had been made or committed by the principals; but misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents, in matters which do not fall within their authority, do not affect their principals.
- A, being B’s agent for the sale of goods, induces C to buy them by a misrepresentation, which he was not authorized by B to make. The contract is voidable, as between B and C, at the option of C.
- A, the captain of B’s ship, signs bills of lading without having received on board the goods mentioned therein. The bills of lading are void as between B and the pretended consignor.
[Repealed] [Repealed by section 73 and Schedule 11 of the Partnership Act, 1932 (Act No. IX of 1932).]