Soon after her arrival the price of cotton rises. A servant cannot create any such legal relations Section 191 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines sub-agent. Consequence of inducing agent or principal to act on belief that principal or agent will be held exclusively liable. Illustrations A contracts to sell and deliver 50 maunds of saltpetre to B, at a certain price to be paid on delivery. The estate is subject to a mortgage. In each of these cases, the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. A sub-agent is not entitled to any remuneration from the principal.
How can an agent be discharged from his duties? The agent was held liable for the loss. This practice of contract labour has also lead to the exploitation of these labourers as they are not employed directly under the employer. C, an unauthorized person, gives notice of termination to A. A was, before he was so employed, a servant of C, and then learnt that the goods really belonged to D, but B is ignorant of that fact. The agreement is void, as its object is unlawful. The agreement is void, becuase it is immoral. Promise 2 b :- A Proposal when accepted becomes a promise.
A substituted agent acts independently for his principal. Any person acting on behalf of the other cannot be an agent for another until there is an implied or explicit agreement between them, which leads to a legal relationship between them. The competent agent is legally capable of acting for this principal vis-à-vis the third party. 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. Firstly, the research paper focuses on the need of Standard Form Contracts and its justification. A asks B to buy some things for the shop.
B's conduct implies a ratification of the loan. It was laid down in John McCain and Co. Agent's duty to pay sums received for principal. Afterwards C, the true owner of the goods, sues B and recovers the value of the goods and costs. B omits to see this done as promised, and M embezzles. The guarantee given by A was not a continuing guarantee, and accordingly he is not liable for the price of the four sacks.
Various case laws has been dealt to explain these matters. The following situations require more discussion: i. An agent is liable to his principal for the direct consequences. 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. One such justification for the popularization of E-Commerce would be immoderate technological advancement. C's payment is good as against A. B is entitled to be reimbursed this sum by A.
You don't need to be signed to a modeling agency to have a manager. B discounts bills for C to the extent of 2,000 rupees. B must make good the loss to A. B informs A, who repudiates the contract altogether. Agent's authority may be expressed or implied. 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. Agent to be indemnified against consequences of acts done in good faith.
The agent is responsible to the principal for the acts of the sub agent. Further, reasonable notice has to be given by one party to the other; otherwise, damage resulting from want of such notice, will have to be paid Section 206. A may, on discovering that B has bought the house, compel him to sell it to A at the price he gave for it. A leaves a cow in the custody of B to be taken care of. Now see the Railways Act 1989 24 of 1989, section 83.
Difference between agency and dealership In the law of agency, the relationship that matters the most between an agent and the principal is the legal relationship. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B. B does not know this, and hands over the proceeds of the sale to A. He is bound to pay A for them. A is entitled to receive 1,500 rupees from B. The agent was under instruction to insure them. A has employed coercion, although his act is not an offence by the law of England, and although section 506 of the Indian Penal Code 45 of 1860 was not in force at the time when or place where the act was done.