An agent’s scope of authority during normal course of business is well-defined in the law. The extent of scope of their authority and their duties are also laid down by the law. However, this authority of the agent may change during an emergency. In the Indian Law, ‘agent’s authority in an emergency’ is articulated under ‘s. 189 of the Indian Contract Act’[1] and there is a separate category of cases also that lie under ‘agency by necessity’. In the Common Law, all the cases are covered under the doctrine of ‘agency by necessity’. There are lot many differences between the ‘agency by necessity’ under common law and ‘agent’s authority in emergency under s. 189’. Unfortunately, the cases under s. 189 have seen a decline and now, rarely any suits filed under this section.
This is because communication has become much easier and is accessible to everyone in the world. Even if one mode of communication is not present, there are alternatives to rely upon. Hence, we will only stick to past cases and situations when communication was difficult. Through this research paper, I will discuss ‘agency by necessity’ and ‘authority of an agent in an emergency ’ under Common law and Indian law respectively and present a comparative analysis between them. I will also be highlighting upon the relevance of this topic in the modern times.
Starting with how the doctrine of ‘agency by necessity’ originated I will first discuss about its origin. After this, I will move on to highlight upon the position of Indian law under s. 189 of Indian Contract Act, following which the common law position will be analysed. Then, a comparative analysis of the positions of the doctrine in these two countries will be presented. Under this comparison, we are going to notice how the widening of the law of necessity under common law has impacted its longevity and how the Indian law by narrowing its law has still managed to ensure the life of s. 189 (modern relevance).
History of Agency by Necessity
“The ‘agency by necessity’ was derived from the doctrine of necessitous intervention.”[2] This common law doctrine has seemed to fill the gap in the legal system as there were no laws to cater to the ship-master situations. In many parts of the world, this rule was called an ‘implied agency’. However, this doctrine ‘agency by necessity’ was a separate category of law which was created to attract situations of ‘necessity’ and ‘emergency’ only. Currently, this doctrine is applicable in India also but the Indian law had adopted it in a different way and is not exactly similar to how it is applicable under the common law.
Originally, the ‘agency by necessity’ under common law was only applicable in the ship-master situations. In fact, the objective to frame this law was to cover cases of ship-master situation only, where the buyer of the goods does not arrive and it becomes impossible to contact the owner. In such a case, the ship-master was given the authority to sell the goods. With time, this law has gone through an extension. In the case ‘Great Northern Railway Co. v. Swaffield’[3], this law applicable only to the ship-master situation extended to the land. “The facts of the case are as follows; the horse was given to a stable because its consignee failed to collect it from the station at the time of delivery. The stable had to take care of the horse and bear all the expenses of the horse. Later, the plaintiff asked the defendant to indemnify him and the case was taken to the court. Court said that defendant was bound to indemnify the plaintiff as the ‘agency by necessity’ was extended to land. Earlier, there was no relationship between the parties but by virtue of ‘agency by necessity’ relationship was created and hence, the plaintiff is entitled to all the expenses borne.”[4]
Indian Position
S. 189 of Indian Contract Act
S. 189 mainly deals with cases of ‘sale of perishable goods’, ‘disposal of goods’ or ‘preservation and protection of goods or interests of the principal’. According to Indian position, in an emergency situation, an agent may not be authorized to do everything. Hence, certain conditions are laid down which if fulfilled by him, he is authorized to act in the benefit of his principal. Let us have a look at these conditions. “Firstly, the agent is unable to communicate with the principal.”[5] This communication issue maybe with respect to either time or means. “In Dayton Price and Co. Ltd. vs S. Rohomotollah And Co., the agent was held to be not in an emergency situation, as he had the time and means to contact his principal.”[6] “Secondly, provided that no communication was established, the agent acted to protect his principal as any person with ordinary prudence would do if he faced similar circumstances.”[7] “Thirdly, agent acted in the bona fide interest of the parties concerned.”[8] In cases under s. 189, suits are usually brought by agent requesting remedy from the principal due to expenses borne during emergency or by the principal who claims that the agent did not act like a prudent person or that there was no emergency in the first place. Any agent who acts in his own interests during emergency, violates his duty towards the principal and his acts will not be called bona fide in nature. In such cases, he will not be reimbursed by the principal.
In India, the law under s. 189 will not create a principal-agent relationship between the parties. In order for an agent to claim any relief, he must be an agent from the beginning and it cannot be because of the ‘emergency’ that such agency has been created. Hence, in common law, ‘agency by necessity’ can be applied without any prior relationship between the parties however under Indian law, there must be an existing contractual relation between the parties for s. 189 of Indian Contract Act to apply. “In fact, it has been held in many cases, that the pre-requisite for the application of doctrine under s. 189 is that there must be a prior principal-agent relationship between the parties.”[9] Such agency can also be created by power of attorney or vakalatnama. “Additionally, the agent does not have the authority to make, change or affect the relationship between the principal and a third party in an emergency.”[10] “These varied positions prove the difference between ‘agency by necessity’ and ‘authority of an agent during emergency’ as under s. 189’. “This difference was also clarified in 13th Law Commission Reports.”[11]
‘Agency by Necessity’ under Indian law
In some exceptional cases agency may be created out of necessity under Indian law too. Under s. 189, there must always be a pre-existing relationship. Under common law, there is one main head ‘agency by necessity’ under which the situations of both pre-existing relationship and no relationship in prior are accommodated. Under Indian law, when the relationship is created due to emergency, it is ‘agency by necessity’ and when there is an already existing principal-agent relationship the case falls under s. 189.
A bailor-bailee relationship is very different from a principal-agent relationship. “However, it has been held that in cases of emergency, the bailee has the power to act as an agent, provided that he could not establish communication with the bailor of the good.”[12] “This was a case where the bailee did not have enough time to contact the bailor and inform him about his goods due to flood in his godown. Hence, this was a case where normally communication could have been established but due to emergency, there was no time to communicate.”[13] This case does not fall under s. 189 as there is no principal-agent relationship existed but the contract of bailment gave rise to the principal-agent relationship. Also, the agent was entitled to the damages because he acted like a prudent person. The bailor-bailee relationship was not extinguished, only a new relationship had come into being. “Normally, the doctrine of necessity is not applied in contracts of bailment but in cases of real emergency it can be applied, hence outside the purview of s. 189.”[14]
“Under Indian law, agency by necessity forms when the persons regardless of the consent of the principal, act in a particular situation and the law creates an agency of necessity.”[15] The stand in India is that if the party is not an agent, he may get the authority to take an action provided he tried his best to establish the communication with the concerned principal but failed. “In Union Of India vs Satyananda Rout, court said that if the consignee does not come to collect the goods, it does not mean that the Railway has got the authority as an agent to sell the goods to someone else. Such agency can only be developed if reasonable steps have been taken to contact the consignee and finally, no communication has been established. The court also said that this is done so that the Railway can deal with the goods of consignee according to his instructions.”[16] “The emphasis is on the fact that a real necessity must exist for sale and it must be practically impossible to get the owner’s instruction in time. The object of the communication is to enable the consignee to give the carrier instructions as to whether the latter shall sell if he considers necessary.”[17] “Hence, this is again the case where ‘agency by necessity’ has been created ‘impliedly’.”[18] The above discussed examples were some instances where the agency can be created even under Indian law but ‘in both the cases there was at least ‘some’ relationship between the parties if there was no principal-agent relationship.’[19]
Scope of the agent’s authority during an emergency
“An agent may not be allowed by his principal to hire a sub-agent.”[20] “Irrespective of this, in an emergency, the agent can hire a sub-agent.”[21] However, there are other cases, where agent cannot exceed his scope of authority. “For instance, if an agent is not allowed to collect money in normal course of business, he will not be allowed to do so in cases of emergency also.”[22] This helps us define the extent of authority of an agent during emergency. An agent may be allowed to do acts like hiring a sub-agent but he is not allowed to do the acts which are ordinarily outside the scope of his duties. In my view, the reason behind it is that such hiring of a sub-agent during emergency will not harm the principal in any case as the agent is solely liable for the acts of his sub-agent. Plus, hiring sub-agent may ease the load for the agent during emergency and the principal may indirectly benefit from this help. However, in cases of a manager collecting money during emergency when he is not ordinarily allowed is beyond his scope of authority and a complete distraction from the ordinary course of dealings.
“There are other cases where if the agent’s authority is not mentioned in his deed properly, then he must act in a manner to prevent any irreparable injury caused to the principal and if he does so, he is entitled to the remedy.”[23] This also creates a conflict as if the agent acts like a reasonable person and steps beyond the scope of his authority, what will be his liability? Under s. 189 of Indian Contract, a lot of importance has been given to the standards of a reasonable person. So, any agent acting in a similar manner will be entitled to remedy and will not be liable for exceeding his scope of authority. This standard of a reasonable person may differ on a case by case basis. An agent is always required to act in a way that safeguards the property of his principal. In cases where the agent has been able to contact the principal, he must act according to his instructions only.
S. 189- A defence?
S. 189 is also used as a defence by the agent for escaping the liability for exceeding the scope of authority. “For example, in ‘Dayton Price & Co. Ltd. v. S. Rohomotollah & Co’[24], the plaintiff borne losses by transporting defendant’s goods through the sea. The defendant refused to accept the goods and reimburse the losses as plaintiff had taken a different route as opposed to the route mentioned in the express instructions of the defendant. The plaintiff argued that he did not take the route mentioned by the defendant due to congestion in that route and since, the defendant had asked for the goods as early as possible, the plaintiff sent it through a different route. Hence, due to emergency a different route was taken. The court did not call it an emergency because the plaintiff could have easily contacted the defendant and asked for his instruction, but he did not this even when he had enough time and means to do so thereby not acting like a reasonable person.”[25] So, this case fell outside the purview of s. 189. Hence, one cannot use s. 189 as a shield to get away with the liabilities or mistakes committed by them.
Common Law Position
‘Agency by Necessity’
Now, let us move to discussing the common law position of ‘agency by necessity’. As already discussed, in case of common law, having a principal-agent relationship in prior is not essential. “Agency by necessity arises through the law and does not require prior express or implied consent of the principal in order to bind him as opposed to the case where express or implied agency already exists. This points out to the huge fundamental difference between normal cases of agency and agency by necessity.”[26] Under common law, an agency can either be created on the spot between parties who had some relation or between parties who are complete strangers to each other. “The agent can be entitled to compensation only if he could save the interests of his principal.”[27]
Broadly speaking, this doctrine of necessity has been established in many zones under common law unlike Indian law. “Firstly, in the ship-master situation which has also been extended to cases in the land. Second, in cases of salvage. For example, a person who rescues the goods in a sinking ship becomes an agent of necessity and is entitled to damages from the principal.”[28] “Third, where a stranger pays the bill for a drawee during necessity, he is entitled to remedy from him.”[29] “Fourth, where the wives are deserted by their husbands, they can pledge from husbands’ credit for the necessaries. The first three zones are influenced by the Roman law and the fourth zone was made under the common law itself.”[30] Before elaborating on the wide reach of this doctrine, let us see the essentials to be fulfilled in an ‘agency by necessity’ under common law.
Ingredients under ‘agency by necessity’ to be fulfilled
“One, it must be completely impossible for the agent to communicate with the principal.”[31] “In Springer v. Great Western Railway Company, the defendant was an agent who sold the plaintiff’s tomatoes as they would perish before reaching the destination. Court held the defendant liable to pay damages to the defendant as he did not contact the plaintiff before selling the tomatoes.”[32] “Two, there must be a necessity of an agent to act.”[33] “There must be a real necessity due to which the agent has to take the necessary steps.”[34] An agent cannot act as agent of necessity just because of inconveniences in holding onto principal’s property. “A bailee is not authorized to sell bailor’s goods because it caused him inconvenience.”[35] “Three, agent must act in the bona fide interest of his principal. There is a huge emphasis on act being in principal’s interest.”[36] If the principal has denied the agent to do a particular act during necessity, any act of agent contrary to the principal’s instructions will make him solely liable and he will also be not entitled to damages if any, incurred. “[37] This is linked to the previous example stated of a bailee who sold the bailor’s good due to inconveniences. This shows that the act was done contrary to principal’s interest and hence, mala fide in nature. “Even when the agent exceeds his scope of authority, he must do that in good faith.”[38] . “It was held in a case that where an agent in order to protect the goods of principal from the invading army, moves it, he is entitled to the compensation even if the principal’s instructions were contrary to the agent’s act. This is an exceptional situation where agent was not held liable even when he did not act according to his principal because he acted in the primary interest of his principal.”[39]
Comparative Analysis of doctrine in Indian and UK in terms of:
1. Extent of applicability/reach
Cases under ‘agency by necessity’ are declining due to development of communication and technology. However, many experts claim that the reason behind this decline is the narrow definition of ‘necessity’ and ‘emergency’. Let us begin to check the extent of this doctrine within India and UK and derive a comparative analysis of the situations in these countries with respect to this doctrine. We would also see how relevant this doctrine is in the contemporary times.
As explained in the beginning of this paper, this doctrine was designed to cater to ‘ship-master situations where it becomes impossible to contact the seller and the buyer does not arrive, the ship-master can sell the goods’[40]. “Then, this doctrine was extended to cases in the land also.”[41] Furthermore, the doctrine can also be applied to bailor-bailee situation and in these aspects common law is pretty much similar to Indian law. “Buyers can also become ‘agents of necessity’ under Common law. If the buyer receives goods from seller which do not adhere to the specifications of the contract and it would not be feasible to transfer the goods back to seller because the money spent in returning is not proportionate to the price of goods, buyer may choose to dispose the goods. Herein, buyer is also acting like an agent of necessity who can later recover damages from the principal.”[42] This is a case where principal-agent relationship is developed. “In a case of necessity, it is not essential that other courses be impossible. Here sending goods back was expensive but not impossible, hence the best idea was to dispose the goods.”[43] Buyer’s agency by necessity is created due to the circumstance. In this case, the elements of ‘agency by necessity’ are not required to be fulfilled, because this a different kind of necessity. The fact that goods did not match the quality and it was disproportionately expensive to send them back, a necessity to dispose them had arisen. Under Indian law, if the buyer wants to claim remedy from seller for supplying poor quality goods which the buyer had to dispose, he can claim it under the ‘Sale of Goods Act’[44] but not under the ‘agency by necessity’. He will not in any case become an agent.
Moving on, this doctrine is applicable even when there is already existing principal-agent and consignor-consignee relationship between the parties. What mainly distinguishes agency by necessity in UK from India is that in UK, if A provides emergency treatment to B who met with an accident, A will be the agent of necessity who can recover the treatment amount from B later. However, the Indian law under s. 189 is only limited to ‘disposing goods’, ‘selling perishable goods’ or ‘preserving them’. And If a person pays for the other’s medical treatment in an emergency, he is entitled to reimbursement, but under ‘s. 70 of Indian Contract Act’[45] and not under ‘agency by necessity’. Under s. 70, when a person pays for the other, a quasi-contract is formed. Hence, there is a contractual relation which is formed under Indian law but there is no principal-agent relationship which arises.
“To give one more example, Cardwells Estate Agent in UK acts as an agent of necessity in serious or life threatening situations. The clause of their contract also says that they may exceed their scope of authority in some cases while acting in good faith. They are engaged in saving the landlord’s property by taking rapid decisions which may not involve principal’s consent.”[46] Even a wife is treated as an agent of necessity in UK. She could claim money from her husband if he had deserted her provided that wife does not have sufficient money. This is based on assumption that women are dependent on the men and as soon as the man deserts her, this ‘agency of necessity’ will be created. However, in India wife can claim ‘alimony’ or maintenance only under personal laws or other laws, and she will not be seen as an ‘agent’. Through these examples, we observe that in UK, many situations are handled under ‘agency by necessity’ and in India, that is not a problem.
One more thing to be noted in every example discussed above is that all agents have acted in a bona fide manner. If one agent acts in his own interest and ignores his principal’s interests, he was not entitled to any compensation. The fundamental difference between the necessity laws of UK and India is present in their elements itself, while the Indian position mandates the agent to act like a reasonable person and in good faith at the same time. Under common law, the agent must behave in exceptionally good faith. Under Indian law the agent may not be granted compensation for unreasonably exceeding his scope of authority. “However, under common law, the principal is always bound to reimburse the agent even if the principal never allowed the acts or refused to ratify it.”[47] This provides additional security to the agent under the doctrine itself. Under ‘s. 223 of Indian Contract Act’[48], an agent can always ask the principal to indemnify him for acting in good faith. But this section will not be applicable for asking reimbursement under s. 189 as one of the elements of s. 223 is that the agent must have acted on the directions of his principal which is always missing under s. 189. Hence, the agent can either ask for remedy under s. 189 or under s. 223. The Indian law does not deny or ignore the rights of the principal or agent, it just recognizes their rights separately unlike common law where everything is included under the doctrine of agency by necessity.
Hence, we can derive that ‘agency by necessity’ is way broader than doctrine under s. 189 of ICA. The Indian law has separated all the statutes for recovering damages however, the common law brings everything together under one ambit which makes the ‘agency by necessity’ wider. So, one cannot claim that this doctrine is in the verge of extinction in UK at least. Now let us check if this doctrine has become extinct in India.
2. Modern Day relevance
In India, due to the narrower application of this doctrine, rarely any cases are filed under s. 189. Hence, to a great extent s. 189 is inapplicable in the contemporary world. It is due to advancement in communication and confined meaning of ‘emergency’ under s. 189 as opposed to ‘agency by necessity’ that its application has reduced. Even when the communication has become easier, there might be cases where it becomes difficult to reach communicate with anyone. Hence, s. 189 will be applied less but not become completely extinct. In UK, the doctrine will be applicable for a longer time as it is not only limited to situations where communication has to be established with the principal, but it constitutes other situations also.
In modern day, there can be instances when communication of agent with the principal becomes nearly impossible. “This can be in the cases of 1. Natural Calamities when the communication network becomes weak. 2. Lack of time to contact the principal 3. Principal not replying to the agent due to which agent takes an action on his own.”[49] Hence, suits under s. 189 may be filed rarely but they will never become extinct as the unforeseeable circumstances like natural calamities will never have an end.
Why Indian Law has not widened the reach of s. 189?
There are many reasons why the Indian law has not widened the definition. In order to form a principal-agent relationship, the consent of the principal is important. “It is a sort of fiduciary relationship where loyalty and bona fide behaviour must exist. This behaviour cannot be expected in every contractual relationship.”[50] A principal always has a control over the agent, except in the cases of emergency. “In the cases of emergency, if this relationship is allowed to develop easily, principal will be bound by the acts of the agent whom he never had control upon or whom he never gave consent to become his agent. This would create lot many issues for the principal because once the agent acts, the principal cannot disown his acts afterwards, he will have to accept it.”[51] In addition to it, he will also be required to reimburse the agent for the losses he suffered.
In this sense, not broadening the ambit of s. 189 is in the benefit of principal and will save him from unnecessary liabilities. This narrow definition has helped to balance the rights of all the parties. The fact that principal can be saved from liability does not mean that the agent will suffer. Sections under Indian Contract Act like s. 223 gives the agent enough support to claim damages for acting in good faith. Other than this, there are numerous other laws under Indian Contract Act which guarantee the preservation of agent’s rights and do not let them suffer. In fact, the whole principle on which the doctrine of agency by necessity is based is the protection of the agent in cases of emergency. Both the Indian law and the common law have assured the agent’s security by continuously modifying, widening, narrowing, eliminating and developing their statutes.
Conclusion
Under the common law, a pre-existing agency is not mandatory however under Indian law it is, but again there is a separate category for ‘agency by necessity’ under Indian law. We also see how the fundamental elements of both the countries’ law is varied. Under Indian law, the parties are required to act like a reasonable person and in a bona fide manner at the same time. But, under the common law, there is a huge prominence placed on acting in ‘good faith’ only. “In fact, in one of the UK cases, agent acted contrary to principal’s decision but in good faith and he was entitled to reimbursement.”[52] The comparative analysis between the Indian and Common law positions helps us understand how both the countries have managed to balance their laws. Narrowing s. 189 of Indian Contract Act does not leave loopholes in the Indian law and widening the doctrine of ‘agency by necessity’ under common law does not lead to unnecessary creation of relationship between the parties.
Speaking about the modern day relevance of these laws, s. 189 due to its confined definition is rarely used however the common law due to its application in a variety of genres has proved to be applicable for a longer period. Under the common law, ‘impossibility of communication’ is not the only kind, it also constitutes other emergency situations as discussed above. Hence, through this research paper we know, that Indian law of s. 189 of Indian Contract Act would be less used however, common law would be of extensive use.
[1] Section 189, Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[2] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation
between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 52.
[3] Great Northern Railway Co. v. Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Pollock and Mulla, “Chapter X Agency,” In Pollock & Mulla The Indian Contract Act, 1872, 15th Edition (LexisNexis:2020 ), 56-57.
[6] Dayton Price & Co. Ltd. v. S. Rohomotollah & Co. on 3 February (1925) AIR 1925 Cal 609.
[7] Section 189 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[8] Pollock and Mulla, “Chapter X Agency,” In Pollock & Mulla The Indian Contract Act, 1872, 15th Edition (LexisNexis:2020 ), 56-57.
[9] Serajuddin and Ors. v. The State of Orissa (1975) AIR 1564, 1975 SCR 169.
[10] Supra note 2
[11] The 13th Report of the Law Commission of India, 1958, para 142.
[12] Shanti Lal v. Tara Chand Madan Gopal (1933) AIR All 158.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation
between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 53.
[15] Revision v. By Sr Govt Pleader Sri. Liju on 28 February 2013.
[16] Union Of India v. Satyananda Rout (1963) AIR Ori 17.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Smt. Phuljhari Devi v. Mithai Lal And Ors. on 17 May (1971) AIR All 494.
[19] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation
between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 51.
[20] Section 190 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[21] Raman & Sharma, “Agent, Sub-agent, Substituted Agent: Judicial Interpretation,”(December 2012): 8.
[22] Dhanpat Rae Chaturvedi v. Allahabad Bank (1926) AIR 1927 Oudh 44 : 98 IC 783.
[23] Chami Narayan v VR Krishna Ayer (1998) AIR Ker 365.
[24] Dayton Price & Co. Ltd. v. S. Rohomotollah & Co. (1925) AIR 1925 Cal 609.
[25] Ibid.
[26] G.H. Trietel, “Introductory,” The Agency by Necessity, (1954): 1.
[27] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation
between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 53.
[28] G.H. Trietel, “Introductory,” The Agency by Necessity, (1954): 1.
[29]“Agency by Necessity.” Columbia Law Review 25, no. 4 (1925): 464-70. Accessed December 16, 2020. doi:10.2307/1114030.
[30] G.H. Trietel, “Introductory,” The Agency by Necessity, (1954): 1.
[31] “Agency by Necessity.” Columbia Law Review 25, no. 4 (1925): 464-70. Accessed December 16, 2020. doi:10.2307/1114030.
[32] Springer v. Great Western Railway Company (1920) 4 L.I.L.Rep. 211.
[33] “Agency by Necessity.” Columbia Law Review 25, no. 4 (1925): 464-70. Accessed December 16, 2020. doi:10.2307/1114030.
[34] Great Northern Railway Co. vs. Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Exch 132.
[35] Sachs v. Miklos (1948) 2 KB 23 and Munro v. Willmott and Co. (1948) 1 KB 295.
[36] Supra note 32.
[37] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation
between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 53.
[38] Ibid.
[39] Tetley v. British Trade Corporation (1922) 10 Lloyds’ List Rep. 678.
[40] Great Northern Railway Co. v. Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Ex 132.
[41] Great Northern Railway Co. vs. Puma Shoes (1874) LR 9 Ex. 132.
[42] G.H. Trietel, “Introductory,” The Agency by Necessity, (1954): 5.
[43] Halsbury’s Laws of England, Vol 1, 5th Ed., 1 March 2008, AGENCY, para 24.
[44] Sale of Goods Act, 1930.
[45] Section 70 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[46]“Homepage: Letting Agents,” Cardwells Estate Agent, accessed Dec. 10, 2020, https://www.cardwells.co.uk/agent-of-necessity.
[47] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 53.
[48] Section 223 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.
[49] G.H. Trietel, “Introductory,” The Agency by Necessity, (1954): 6.
[50] Roshni and Vimal, “A Study of the Agency of necessity with reference to Consensual Relation
between the Agent and the Principal in Contract,” International Research Journal of Social Sciences, no 1(3) (November 2012): 55.
[51] Ibid 52.
[52] Tetley v. British Trade Corporation (1922) 10 Lloyds’ List Rep. 678.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at secondinnings.hr@gmail.com
In the year 2021, we wrote about 1000 Inspirational Women In India, in the year 2022, we would be featuring 5000 Start Up Stories.