Quinn v CC Automotive Group [2010]


  • The claimant was, in his view sold a car a salesman of CC Automotive Group (also known as Carcraft)
  • The salesman was a fraudster, who left Quinn with debt on his new and old cars
  • The fraudster could not be found


  • Were Carcraft liable for the fraudster’s acts?


  • Yes


  • Although both parties to be dispute were ‘innocent’, a principal should be bound by the mistakes of his agent, not a third party to whom the agent is a stranger
  • The salesman had apparent authority, and the claimant suffered to his detriment following reliance on the representation that the salesman had the authority to sell a car to him, allowing recompense
RELATED CASE  Guassen v Morton (1830)

Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 30th December 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy