Summers v Salomon (1857)

Facts

  • The defendant principal owned a jewellery shop, which employed his nephew as agent
  • After leaving the shop, the nephew ordered jewellery from suppliers
  • After taking delivery of the jewellery, the nephew disappeared

Issue

  • Was the defendant liable for the acts of his nephew?

Decision

  • Yes

Reasoning

  • Although actual authority has been terminated, the defendant’s representation of his nephew’s authority was continuing, and therefore the nephews apparent authority still existed
RELATED CASE  European Asian Bank v Punjab Sind Bank (No. 2) [1983]

Posted in Commercial Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 30th December 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy