In: Accounting
Compare between the commission agency and the contract agency, in terms of nature of work, type of contract, contract obligations, assignment of the agent, and the law establishing it.
In the modern day society with a lot of advancements and changes
taking place in every field almost every minute, the field of law
is no exception. A lot of intricacies have come up in the formation
of a valid contract and same is the case with a contract of
agency.
A contract of agency has three fundamental constituents- a
principal, an agent and a third party. The role played by an agent
in the entire process is of much importance and relevance in the
successful carrying out of the business. Although the agent simply
represents his principal in the conduct of the business, the role
played by him is significant as it is him who has the power to
affect the legal relations of the principal with third
persons.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872 lays down a set of guidelines which
highlight the powers, rights and duties of an agent. In the paper
at hand, an attempt shall be made to highlight the obligations of
an agent in the contract of agency under the Indian Contract Act
and a comparison of the same with the English laws.
Who is an Agent?
The word agent is used to refer to various kinds of activity. In
the famous case of Kennedy v. De Trafford, Lord Herschell observed
No word is more commonly and constantly abused than the word agent.
A person may be spoken of as an agent and no doubt in popular sense
of the word he may properly be said to be an agent, although when
it is attempted to suggest that he is an agent under such
circumstances as create the legal obligations attaching to agency
that use of the word is only misleading. Often in the field of
business, the word agent is used in a complimentary sense and not
in the legal sense of the word.
Section 182 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, opens, by defining
who an agent and a principal is. It says, An agent is a person
employed to do any act for another, or to represent another in
dealings with third persons. The person for whom such act is done,
or who is represented, is called the principal. This definition of
an agent, in short, subtly tries to bring out the difference
between the legal positions of an agent from that of any ordinary
person who is employed to do an act. The essence of the matter lies
in the fact that in the case of an agent, it is the principal
himself who authorises the agent to represent him or act on his
behalf and while doing so, he can bring the principal into
contractual relations with a third person.
J. Ramaswami of the Madras High Court tried to explain the concept
of agency in the case of P. Krishna Bhatta v Mundila Ganpathi
Bhatta where he said that in legal terms and phraseology, any
person who acts for another cannot be called an agent. If such a
thing happens, a servant rendering his services to his master; or a
person tilling anothers field or a person working in somebody elses
shop or factory would be considered as their agent.
However, it is not so. It is only when a person acts as a
representative of another in business dealings and negotiations,
between that other person and a third party, he is legally an agent
of the person on whose behalf he is acting. To put it succinctly,
it may be described as the relationship between a principal and an
agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes
the agent to act on his or her behalf and the agent is, thus,
empowered to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him or
her and third parties into a contractual relationship.
The same observation was made by the Supreme Court in Syed Abdul
Khader v Rami Reddy where it said that the expression agency is
used to connote the relation which exists where one person has an
authority or capacity to create legal relations between a person
occupying the position of principal and a third partyâ€. An agent
is simply an extended hand of the principal and cannot claim
independent rights.
What is a contract of agency?
It is often believed that until 13th century, agency was not a
part of the common law system. There were three main factors that
helped in the effective development of this concept of agency.
These factors can be pointed out as: the emergence of attorneys to
deal with legal matters; the influence of the canon law; some of
the customs of the merchants who were engaged in healthy trade in
Europe. The influence of mercantile law which was greatly
contributing to the development of commercial activities, also
helped the common law to develop the concept that a principal was
in direct contractual relation with third parties and such a
principle formed the basis for the evolution of the theory of
agency.
The origin of such a principle, which said that the principal is in
direct contractual relationship with third parties in any contract
entered into by his agent on his behalf, emerged from the case of
Costace v Forteye. This case was decided in 1389 by the majors and
elder men based in the city of London. What happened in this
particular case was that an apprentice and attorney of a London
merchant bought wine from a French merchant for his master
(Fortenye) and when he failed to satisfy the full payment to the
seller, the agent was committed to prison. However, the agent
(apprentice) i.e. Costance, said that it was his master who had
sent him to buy the wine and then the master had approved the
bargain.
The Mayor then ordered that the master (defendant) should satisfy
the full payment to the French seller and also ordered that the
plaintiff should be set free from the prison. The Mayor based his
decision on the ground that the apprentice had made the purchase
for the use and benefit of the master. The point that can be
understood from the above case is that, a direct claim by a third
party was admitted against the principal for contracts made by his
agent for the benefit of the principal.
Thus, a contract of agency is essentially one where an agent is
authorized by the principal to act on his behalf or represent him
and in the process, bring the principal into contractual relations
with third persons[8].
Test for determining the existence of agency
In Loon Karan Sohanlal v. John & Co., Dhawan J. of the
Allahabad High Court put forward the test for determining whether
there exists the relationship of agency. He explained that in
American Jurisprudence it is clearly mentioned that mere use of the
words agent and agency does not by itself create a relationship of
agency and the same law is followed in India. He added that it has
been held in several decisions that just because the parties have
named their relationship as agency is not a conclusive proof unless
the incidence of this relationship, as disclosed by evidence,
justifies a finding of agency. He also said that the courts, while
examining the evidence, must try to find out the true nature of the
relationship and the functions and powers assigned to the so-called
agent.
Applying this test, it was held that a procurement agent is not an
agent in the legal sense of the term as he does not represent
another and is directed to do an act on a commission.
For the creation of a legally valid contract of agency, there are
certain requirements that need to be fulfilled.
The Indian Contract Act provides that in order to take up the role
of a principal, a person should have attained the age of majority
according to the law to which he is subject and should be a person
of a sound mind.
Another point highlighted by this act is that a minor cannot take
up the position of a principal. This is based on the simple logic
that since a minor cannot enter into a contract, the appointment of
an agent by him under a contract of agency would also be
void.
However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. In cases where
the minor is capable of binding himself by the contract, he may
appoint an agent to enter into a contract on his behalf. Moreover,
there is nothing in this act that prevents the guardian of a minor
from appointing an agent for him. Also, no consideration is
necessary for a contract of agency.
As far as the question whether it is compulsory for an agent to be
competent to contract is concerned, it is clearly mentioned in
section 184 that as between the principal and third persons any
person may become an agent. This is mainly because an agent under
ordinary circumstances incurs no personal liability while acting on
behalf of his principle and thus it is not compulsory that he
should be competent to contract.
Same is the condition under the English law where it is possible
for a person to contract through a minor but the minor will not be
responsible to his principal. In case of a company, it may act as
an agent beyond its capacity
Whenever a contract of agency is entered into, it is the principal
and the agent who predetermine their mutual rights and obligations.
Their mutual undertakings may be expressed or implied as can be
inferred to a greater or less extent, from the nature and the
circumstances of the particular agency. The obligations that are
peculiar of certain categories of agents, such as factors and
brokers, are defined by their usage. However, there exist certain
duties of general nature that are generally imposed by law upon
every agent unless excluded or modified by a special contract. We
shall now be dealing with some of such duties in detail.
Duties of an agent
1. Duty to execute mandate- It is the foremost duty of an agent to
carry out the mandates of his principal. He should perform the duty
assigned to him in the best possible manner and in case of any
failure on his part, he would be held absolutely liable for the
principals loss.
In England, the rule of equity which is followed in almost all the
cases states that, if an order is sent by a principal to an agent
to make an insurance for him and the agent after charging the
principal, never in fact makes the insurance, the agent would be
considered as the insurer himself. In such cases, the agent is
usually held liable to the principal for the amount lost due to the
absence of insurance.
The same position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Pannalal
Jankidas v Mohanlal, where the agent who was asked by the principal
to get the goods insured and in fact charged the premium from the
principal but never got the insurance, was held liable to
compensate the principal when the goods were lost in an
explosion.
2. Duty to follow Instructions or Customs- Section 211 of the
Indian Contract Act provides that it is the paramount duty of the
agent to act according to the instructions of the principal and to
regulate his activities in such a manner so as not to go beyond his
authority. In Bostock v Jardine, it was clearly laid down that any
disobedience of or departure from the instructions is enough to
make the agent absolutely liable for the loss.
Whenever the directions are not clearly mentioned, the agent is
supposed to follow the customs which are most prevalent among
businesses of the same kind and in the place where the agent
conducts such businesses.
The English law of agency follows like provisions. It provides that
where an agent acts in contravention of the instructions of his
principal, if any loss is sustained in the process, he is liable to
make good for it. In Lilley v Doubleday, where the agent did not
act according to the instructions of the principal and the goods
were destroyed, he was held liable.
It is held that an estate agent cannot make a contract with a third
party that would be binding upon his principal. This was first laid
down in the case of John v Philip.
In USA too, the provisions are somewhat similar and it is the
agents supreme duty to pursue the terms of his authority and adhere
strictly to the instructions given by his principal. Any voluntary
deviation by the agent from the instructions provided, is at his
own peril, and, subject to the exceptions hereinafter stated,
renders him liable to the principal for any loss resulting unless
the principal, with full knowledge of the facts, ratifies such
acts.
Certain exceptions present under the law of agency in USA
where an agent is not required to perform this duty
are:-
(a) Where obedience to such duty would require him to perform an
illegal or immoral act;
(b) Where a departure from instructions or mandates is justified by
the occurrence of an unforeseen emergency, or the performance of
which has, without the default of the agent, become
impossible.
(c) Where obedience would impair his security for advances made
upon goods consigned to him for sale.
3. Duty of reasonable care and skill- Section 212 of the Indian
Contract Act states that in a contract of agency, an agent is
required to conduct the business with such skill and diligence as
is usually observed by persons engaged in businesses of the same
kind. He is supposed to perform his acts efficiently and diligently
and in case of his failure to do so, he is liable to make
compensation to his principal in respect of the direct consequences
of his own neglect, want of skill or misconduct. However, he cannot
be made liable with respect to the losses or damages which are
indirectly or remotely caused by such neglect, want of skill or
misconduct. Also, if the agent satisfies the standards that are
required in the kind of business he is engaged in, he will not be
held liable to compensate the principal.
The English law also follows the same line and says that the kind
of care and skill which an agent is supposed to bestow depends on
the nature of his profession. For instance, an insurance agent is
must make sure that the clauses usually required for the protection
of the principal are present in the policy. Similarly, an estate
agent must be well aware of the laws of the land and also must take
care to ensure the solvency of the tenant. The English Act also
lays down that a person who is acting as an agent should command
enough legal knowledge to sufficiently safeguard the interests of
the principal in the course of the agency.
Under the US law of agency, it is said that when an agent is
appointed, he impliedly undertakes that he will exercise reasonable
skill, care, and diligence in the performance of the agency. As a
rule, it is laid down that, where an agent is receiving
compensation for the services he is rendering, that particular
degree of skill, care, and diligence is required, and suffices,
which is usually exercised by persons of common capacity and
prudence who are engaged in similar transactions.
Obviously, the degree of skill, care, and diligence with which an
agent undertakes to perform his duty, is a question of fact,
depending, not only upon the nature of the act to be performed, but
upon all the circumstances of the case such as what are the
instructions communicated, the usages of trade and the customs
followed in that business, the manner of the previous dealings, and
the degree of skill which the agent professes
Thus, if the transaction is of a nature that requires expert skill
and knowledge, the agent impliedly undertakes, if a different
intention does not appear from his part that he will exercise the
skill and knowledge of an expert. On the other hand, if the agent
does not profess to be an expert, and the principal, being well
aware of this fact, nevertheless finds him suitable for the duty,
it will not be implied that the agent undertook to exercise the
skill and knowledge of an expert, nor will the agent be held liable
if his performance is not of a higher standard upon which the
principal has reason to bank upon.
Section 212 covers another aspect which says that it is the duty of
an agent to use all reasonable diligence to communicate with the
principal in cases of difficulty and try his best to seek his
instructions. In all such situations where the agent is
misinforming the principal and a loss occurs due to his misconduct,
he is liable to the principal as was held in Jayabharthi Corp v. Sv
P.N. Rajasekhara Nadar.
4. Duty to avoid conflict of interest- This duty deals with two
aspects. Firstly, as described in Section 215, it is said that in
situations where the agent acts on his own without obtaining any
permission of the principal or acquainting him with the true state
of affairs or if the principal comes to know that certain material
facts were dishonestly concealed from him or the agent dealt with
the business in such a manner so as to be disadvantageous to the
principal, the principal has all the rights to repudiate the
transaction. However, such repudiation must be made within
reasonable time after discovering the fact
The second aspect is dealt with by section 216 whenever the agent
without the knowledge of his principal engages in transactions on
his own account rather than on the account of the principal and
makes benefit out of such transactions, the principal is entitled
to claim any such benefit from the agent.
Similar laws are followed in England and it is explained that since
an agent is in a fiduciary relationship with the principal, it is
his duty not to do any such thing that would bring into conflict
his own personal interest and his duty towards his principal.
Under the US law, the provision is that whenever the agent assumes
to deal with himself in a manner in which he is likely to deal with
third persons, then in such a situation, his own interest and that
of his principal necessarily become antagonistic and the principal
may repudiate such a transaction irrespective of the fact whether
or not it has resulted in a loss to him and without regard to it
being bona fide.
5. Duty not to make secret profit- The Indian law of agency
provides that it is the duty of an agent not to make secret
profits. Now, the question is, what is secret profit? To put it
simply, it means any benefit and advantage that is obtained by the
agent which is much more than his agreed remuneration and which he
would never have made had he not been that agent. The principal is
entitled to claim interest on the illicit profit made by the
agent.
In England, accepting bribe falls within the term profit of this
sort. In Andrews v Ramsay, an auctioneer who received who received
a commission from the buyer in addition to his usual remuneration
from his principal, he was bound to give the commission to the
principal. Also in cases where the agent sells his own goods or
stock to the principal without making him aware of this fact and
charges the prevailing market price, it is held that he is liable
to account for any profit that he made in the transaction.
However, in cases where an agent merely makes use of the knowledge
received in the course of business and makes some profit out of it,
he is not liable to the principal if he neither makes any use of
the principals property nor diverts any of his opportunities.
The position in US is that an agent who is employed to buy on
behalf of the principal may not buy from himself. Also, an agent
who is appointed to sell cannot himself become the purchaser. It is
also clearly stated that any sort of evidence of custom cannot be
admitted to convert a broker who is employed to buy for his
employer into a principal to sell to him unless the employer has
knowledge of such an arrangement and assents to the dealing on the
footing of such custom. It is also laid down that agent will not be
permitted to accomplish indirectly what he is not allowed to do
directly; for instance by selling to a third person acting in his
interest.
6. Duty to remit sums- Section 218 of the Indian Contract Act
enumerates yet another duty of an agent. It states that an agent is
bound to pay all sums received on account of his principal subject
to certain deductions. In BholaNath v Mulchand, it was held that in
case an agent is receiving money on behalf of his principal under a
contract that is void or illegal, he simply cannot use the
illegality of the contract to withhold the payment to his principal
which illegality has been removed by the other party by paying the
amount.
7. Duty to maintain accounts- An agent is required to render true
and complete accounts to his principal as and when demanded. This
is important because it helps the agent to perform his other duties
well; for instance this helps him to remit proper sums to his
principal. It is pertinent to note that although there is no such
provision in this Act which enables an agent to institute a suit
against the principal for accounts, the Supreme Court in
Narandas Morardas Gajiwala v S.P.A.M Papammal,
that the provisions of the Contract Act are not exhaustive in such
regard and it is an equitable remedy available with an agent to sue
the principal under certain circumstances.
In a Madras High Court Case, a mill which was being run by an agent
was taken over by the owners and it was claimed by the agent that
he lost the accounts in the process of take-over and thus claimed
accounts from the principal. However, since he was not able to
prove that he had actually lost the accounts, the court did not
grant him any relief.
In Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co. v. Orion Marine
Insurance Underwriting Agency Ltd. it was held that “the
obligation to provide an accurate account in the fullest sense
arises by reason of the fact that the agent has been entrusted with
the authority to bind the principal to transactions with third
parties and the principal is entitled to know what his personal
contractual rights and duties are in relation to those third
parties as well as what he is entitled to receive by way of payment
from the agent.
8. Duty not to delegate- The well-known maxim of Delegatus non
potest delegare is often used under the law of agency. This means
that an agent who is appointed to do a particular work cannot
further delegate it to another person. This is mainly because a
particular person is chosen as an agent by the principal for the
simple reason that he reposes trust and confidence in such a
person.
In the English case of John McCain and Co. , it was clearly laid
down that unless the principal specifically authorizes the estate
agent to delegate the work to another person or to appoint a
sub-agent, he has no right to do so.
Section 190 clearly explains the conditions under which an agent is
not allowed to delegate his work to another. However, the same
section puts forward a few exceptions to this general principle.
Some of these exceptions can be enumerated as below:-
a) Nature of work- Sometimes the nature of the work is such that it
is important for the agent to appoint a sub-agent. For instance, in
a particular case, a banker who was authorised to let out a house
and collect rents was allowed to delegate this duty to a
sub-agent.
b) Trade custom- In cases where there exists a trade custom to the
effect that a sub-agent may be appointed, in such cases he can be
appointed and the work can be delegated to him.
c) Ministerial action- An agent can delegate such acts to a
sub-agent which are purely ministerial in nature. For instance, the
authority to sign.
d) Principals Consent- Yet another exception where an agent can
delegate his duty to a sub-agent is with the principals consent.
The principal may give such a consent expressly or impliedly.