SECTION 184

CASE: Gopi Mal Durga Das vs. Jain Bank of India Ltd

 A minor can be an agent of a principal, when the latter is competent to contract.

CASE: Madan Gopal vs. Hindu Biscuit Co. Ltd

 Where a person knowingly appoints a minor as his agent, later he cannot say that the
contract is void, being made by a minor

CASE: Re LC De Souza

 An income tax notice delivered by a postal peon to the assessee’s son who was a minor and
possessed of ordinary intelligence has been held to be a good service on the assesse.

SECTION 192

CASE: Summan Singh vs. NC Bank of New York

 The plaintiff in a foreign country appointed the NC Bank to deliver a sum of money to one
pritam singh of jullunder, whose address was given. The bank instructed its Bombay branch
accordingly. The Bombay branch appointed the Punjab National Bank which delivered the
money to a wrong person.
 Hence, here the Plaintiff’s action failed against either bank. Punjab national bank was not
liable on the principle that a sub-agent is not liable to the principal except when he is found
guilty of fraud or wilful wrong. The wrong delivery was due to only negligence. The NC Bank
exempted itself from the consequence of the wrong delivery.

SECTION 198

CASE: Keighley vs. Durant

 The agent must profess to act as an agent and on behalf of an identifiable principal. It is not
necessary for him to name the principal but there should be a description of him as shall
amount to a reasonable designation of the person. If the agent acts in his own name and
makes no allusion to agency his act cannot be ratified by any other person. Even if the agent
in his mind secretly wanted to act for another.
 Keighley authorised their agent to buy Karachi wheat at specified rates on their joint account
 Wheat was not obtainable at those rates and he brought wheat at a higher rate.
 The agent did so in the hope that his principal would adopt his act, but he never mentioned
the principals and contracted in his own name.
 The principals approved the purchase but when the price of the wheat fell they refused to
take the delivery.
 Durant sued the agent and the principal for the breach of contract.
 HELD: The principals were not held liable. The agent, having contracted in his own name, his
act was not open to anybody’s ratification, and therefore the purported ratification was
ineffective.
SECTION 205

CASE: Shackleton Aviation Ltd. vs. Maitland drewery Aviation limited

 The right to claim damages would depend upon whether there was any obligation on part of
the principal to continue his business until the end of the specified period.
 A principal is not obliged to continue the business during the period simply because the
agency is for a definite time, and the principal has to pay remuneration to the agent.

SECTION 206

CASE: Shorabji D. Medora vs. Oriental government security assurance co.

 FACTS: Where an insurance agent had acted as agent for a long period of time and had to
maintain a large staff of canvassers, 3.5 months’ notice was not reasonable, and the notice
ought to have been at least two years in the circumstances.
 Where an agency has been created for a fixed period, a reasonable notice would be
necessary to terminate it. Also the length of the notice will depend, among other things,
upon the length for which the agency has continued.
 Thus in this case the Privy Council held, the notice of 3.5 months given by the respondants
was inadequate to determine an agency which had lasted for nearly 50 years under which a
very large business had been built up, and great expense incurred by the agents.
 Hence, Privy Council was of the view that the time period to be insufficient. At least 2 years
of time was necessary.

SECTION 208

CASE: Ram Asri vs. Rakesh Chand

 Concept: So far as third parties as concerned, the termination of an agency has no effect till
they have notice of the same. In the absence of actual notice or of constructive notice by
lapse of time or other indications, the principal will remain liable to those dealing in good
faith with the agent on the assumption that his authority still continues.
 Onus is on the consumer to show that he has not received the news of the termination of
agency and they acted in good faith.
 Hence, Burden of proof lies on the third party to show that he had no notice of revocation.

SECTION 213

Case: Narandas Morardas gajiwala vs. SPAM Papammal

 In certain circumstances, the agent may maintain an action against his principal for accounts.
An agent has no statutory right to sue for an account against the principal; his right is not
based on statute but based upon equity.
 In this case the Supreme Court held that though the agent had no statutory right to sue for
an account against the principal, nevertheless, in special circumstances it may be equitable
that the principal should account to the agent. Such circumstances would arise where, for
instance, the accounts are in the possession of the principal, and the agent does not possess
any, and the agent is unable to know the amount due to him without examining the
accounts which are in possession of his principal.