Irvine v Watson (1880)

Facts

  • The defendant (principal) employed an agent to purchase oil
  • The claimant (third party) delivered the oil to the agent
  • The the party┬ápaid his agent
  • The agent became insolvent, meaning that the third party did not receive its money

Issue

  • Had the principal discharged his payment obligation to the third party?

Decision

  • No

Reasoning

  • Rarely should a third party be denied a remedy to a principal; the principal buy blue xanax online takes on the risk of using an agent in disclosed agency
  • Obiter: this case doubted Armstrong v Stokes (1872)
  • Obiter: a third party should only pay an agent if authority has been given by the principal to the agent to receive the payment (so be careful, third parties)
RELATED CASE  Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties [1964]

Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 1st January 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy