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  Hilton v Baker Booth and Eastwood [2005]

Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 1st January 2015

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms