S.R.

Luthra Institute Of Management

A Study On

Specific Contracts of Indian Constitution

Submitted to, Mohammad Imran Shaikh Submitted by,

Foram Patel(118050592036) Piyush Patel(118050592011) Nishit Gori(118050592029)

Roma Rangwani(118050592037) Jenish Thakkar(118050592004) Bharat Seth(118050592025)

Table of Content
Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 Particulars Contract of Indemnity Contract of Guarantee Contract of Bailment Pledge Agency

Contract of Indemnity

CONTRACT OF INDEMNITY DEFINED (SECTION 124)

A contract of indemnity is a contract whereby one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person. Example:Contracts to indemnify B against the consequences of any proceeding which C may take against B in respect of a certain sum of 200 rupees. This is a contract of indemnity.Under a contract of indemnity loss to promisee is essential. Unless the promisee has suffered a loss, he cannot hold the promisor liable on the contract of indemnity. Further, as per Section 124, the loss must have been occasioned either by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of any other person. Thus, loss occasioned by the conduct of the promisee or an act of God is not covered. If this strict view were to be accepted, a large number of insurance transactions shall not be covered under a contract of indemnity. It has, therefore, been held [Gajnan Moreshwar vs. Moreshwar Madan, 1942 Bom. 302] that the law relating to indemnity is by no means exhaustive and hence Courts in India shall follow the English Law in this regard. In English Law, indemnity is defined as a promise to save another harmless from the loss caused as a result of a transaction entered into at the instance of the promisor. The definition in English Law includes promise to save a harmless person from loss resulting not only from the conduct of the promisor or third person, but also from loss caused by events or accidents like death, disability, destruction by fire, cyclone, etc. A contract of indemnity may arise either (1) by an express promise, or (2) by operation of law, e.g., the duty of a principal to indemnify an agent from consequences of all lawful acts done by him as an agent. Similarly, on a transfer of shares, the transferee, in law, undertakes to indemnify the transferor against all future calls. RIGHTS OF INDEMNIFIED (i.e. THE INDEMNITY HOLDER) (SECTION 125) The indemnity-holder is entitled to recover from the promisor: 1. All damages which he may be compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter to which the promise to indemnify applies; 2. All costs of suit which he may have to pay to such third party, provided in bringing or defending the suit (a) he acted under the authority of the indemnifier or (b) he did not act in contravention of the orders of the indemnifier and in such a way as a prudent man would act in his own case;

3. All sums which he may have paid under the terms of any compromise of any such suit, if the compromise was not contrary to the orders of the indemnifier, and was one which it would have been prudent for the promisee to make.

RIGHTS OF INDEMNIFIER The Act makes no mention of the rights of an indemnifier. It has been held [Jaswant Singhji vs Section of State 14 Bom. 299] that his rights, in such cases, are similar to the rights of a surety under Section 141, viz., he becomes entitled to the benefit of all the securities which the creditor has against the principal debtor whether he was aware of them or not.

COMMENCEMENT OF INDEMNIFIERS LIABILITY There have been diversified views held regarding the time of commencement of the indemnifiers liability. The High Courts of Lahore1, Nagpur2 and Bombay3 have held that the indemnifier does not become liable until the indemnified has incurred an actual loss. But 1. Sham Sunder v. Chandra Lal, 1935 Lah. 974. 2. Ranganath v. Pachusoo, 1935 Nag. 147. 3. Sanker Nimbaqui v. Laxman Napu, 1940 Bom. 161. the High Courts of Calcutta4, Allahabad5 and Bombay6 (in another case), have decided that the indemnified may compel the indemnifier to place him in a position to meet liability that may be cast upon him without waiting until the promisee (indemnified) has actually discharged it. The latter view is now quite well established and the law on the point may well be taken as settled. Indemnity is not necessarily given by repayment after payment. Indemnity requires that the party to be indemnified shall never be called upon to pay. Indemnity like any other contract must have all the essentials of a valid contract.

Contract Of Guarantee

Contract of Guarantee A "contract of guarantee" is a contract to perform the promise, or discharge the liability, of a third person in case of his default. The person who gives the guarantee is called the "surety", the person in respect of whose default the guarantee is given is called the "principal debtor", and the person to whom the guarantee is given is called the "creditor". A guarantee may be either oral or written. (Sec 126) Essential Features of a Contract of Guarantee 1. Tripartite agreement: In a contract of guarantee, there are three parties namely: principal creditor, creditor and surety. Under this contract, three separate contracts are made among them and consent of all the three parties is necessary. The contracts connecting each-other as contract between: i. ii. iii. The principal debtor and creditor The creditor and surety The surety and principal debtor.

2. Liability: Under such contract the primary liability is of the principal debtor and only secondary liability is of the surety. As a conditional contract, liability of the surety arises only when the principal debtor (primarily liable) defaults. 3. Essentials of valid contract: It is also as same as other general contract in respect of essentials. All the requirements for valid contract, i.e. free consent, consideration, lawful object, competency of the parties etc. are necessary to form this kind of contract. But, in respect of consideration, no direct consideration in the contract between the surety and creditor. Consideration of principal debtor is considered to be adequate for the surety. 4. Written form: A contract relating to guarantee must be concluded in writing in Nepal and England. But, the Indian legal framework does not compel to form such contract in written form. Both written and oral is valid in India.

Consideration for guarantee Anything done, or any promise made, for the benefit of the principal debtor, may be a sufficient consideration to the surety for giving the guarantee. Illustrations 1. B requests A to sell and deliver to him goods on credit. A agrees to do so, provided C will guarantee the payment of the price of the goods. C promises to guarantee the payment in consideration of As promise to deliver the goods. This is a sufficient consideration for Cs promise. 2. A sells and delivers goods to B. C afterwards requests A to forbear to sue B for the debt for a year, and promises that, if he does so, C will pay for them in default of payment by B. A agrees to forbear as requested. This is a sufficient consideration for Cs promise. 3. A sells and delivers goods to B. C afterwards, without consideration, agrees to pay for them in default of B. The agreement is void.

Distinction between Indemnity and Guarantee A contract of indemnity differs from a contract of guarantee in the following ways: 1. In a contract of indemnity there are only two parties: the indemnifier and the indemnified. In a contract of guarantee, there are three parties; the surety, the principal debtor and the creditor. 2. In a contract of indemnity, the liability of the indemnifier is primary. In a contract of guarantee, the liability of the surety is secondary. The surety is liable only if the principal debtor makes a default, the primary liability being that of the principal debtor. 3. The indemnifier need not necessarily act at the request of the debtor; thesurety gives guarantee only at the request of the principal debtor. 4. In the case of a guarantee, there is an existing debt or duty, the performance of which is guaranteed by the surety, whereas in the case of indemnity, the possibility

of any loss happening is the only contingency against which the indemnifier undertakes to indemnify. 5. The surety, on payment of the debt when the principal debtor has failed to pay is entitled to proceed against the principal debtor in his own right, but the indemnifier cannot sue third-parties in his own name, unless there be assignment. He must sue in the name of the indemnified.

Extent of Suretys Liability The liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless the contract otherwise provides (Section 128). A creditor is not bound to proceed against the principal debtor. He can sue the surety without suing the principal debtor. As soon as the debtor has made default in payment of the debt, the surety is immediately liable. But until default, the creditor cannot call upon the surety to pay. In this sense, the nature of the suretys liability is secondary. (Sec 128) Illustration A guarantees to B the payment of a bill of exchange by C, the acceptor. The bill is dishonored by C. A is liable not only for the amount of the bill but also for any interest and charges which may have become due on it. Section 128 only explains the quantum of a suretys obligation when terms of the contract do not limit it. Conversely it doesnt follow that the surety can never be liable when the principal debtor cannot be held liable. Thus, a surety is not discharged from liability by the mere fact that the contract between the principal debtor and creditor was voidable at the option of the former, and was avoided by the former. Where the agreement between the principal debtor and creditor is void as for example in the case of minority of principal debtor, the surety is liable as a principal debtor; for in such cases the contract of the so-called surety is not collateral, but a principal contract (Kashiba v. Shripat (1894) 19 Bom. 697).

Continuing Guarantee A guarantee which extends to a series of transaction, is called, a "continuing guarantee". (Sec 129)

Illustrations 1. A, in consideration that B will employ C in collecting the rents of Bszamindari, promises B to be responsible, to the amount of 5,000 rupees, for the due collection and payment by C of those rents. This is a continuing guarantee. 2. A guarantees payment to B, a tea-dealer, to the amount of 100, for any tea he may from time to time supply to C. B supplies C with tea of above the value of 100, and C pays B for it. Afterwards, B supplies Cwith tea of the value of 200. C fails to pay. The guarantee given by A was a continuing guarantee, and he is accordingly liable to B to the extent of 100. 3. A guarantees payment to B of the price of five sacks of flour to be delivered by B to C and to be paid for in a month. B delivers five sacks toC. C pays for them. Afterwards B delivers four sacks to C, which C does not pay for. The guarantee given by A was not a continuing guarantee, and accordingly he is not liable for the price of the four sacks.

Kinds of Guarantees A contract of guarantee may be for an existing debt, or for a future debt. It may be a specific guarantee, or it may be a continuing guarantee. 1. Specific Guarantee: A specific guarantee is given for a single debt and comes to an end when the debt guaranteed has been paid. 2. Continuing Guarantee: A continuing guarantee is one which extends to a series of transactions (Section 129). The liability of surety in case of a continuing guarantee extends to all the transactions contemplated until the revocation of the guarantee.

Illustrations S, in consideration that C will employ P in collecting the rents of Cs Zamindari, promises C to be responsible to the amount of Rs. 5,000 for the due collection and payment by P of these rents. This is a continuing guarantee. Revocation of Continuing Guarantee A continuing guarantee is revoked in the following circumstances: 1. by notice of revocation by the surety (Section 130): The notice operates torevoke the suretys liability as regards future transactions. He continues to be liable for transactions entered into prior to the notice (Offord v. Davies (1862) 6 L.T.S. 79).

2. By the death of the surety: The death of the surety operates, in the absence of contract (Lloyds v. Harper (188) 16 Ch. D. 290) as a revocation of a continuing guarantee, so far as regards future transactions (Section 131). But for all the transactions made before his death, the suretys estate will be liable. Rights of Surety A surety has certain rights against the creditor, (Section 141) the principal debtor (Sections 140 and 145) and the co-securities (Sections 146 and 147). (a) Suretys rights against the creditor: Under Section 141 a surety is entitled to the benefit of every security which the creditor has against the principal debtor at the time when the contract of suretyship is entered into whether the surety knows of the existence of such security or not; and, if the creditor losses or, without the consent of the surety parts with such security, the surety is discharged to the extent of the value of the security. (b) Rights against the principal debtor: After discharging the debt, the surety steps into the shoes of the creditor or is subrogated to all the rights of the creditor against the principal debtor. He can then sue the principal debtor for the

amount paid by him to the creditor on the debtors default; he becomes a creditor of the principal debtor for what he has paid.

In some circumstances, the surety may get certain rights even before payment. The surety has remedies against the principal debtor before payment and after payment. In MamtaGhose v. United Industrial Bank (AIR 1987 Cal. 180) where the principal debtor, after finding that the debt became due, started disposing of his properties to prevent seizure by surety, the Court granted an injunction to the surety restraining the principal debtor from doing so. The surety can compel the debtor, after debt has become due to exonerate him from his liability by paying the debt. (c) Suretys rights gains co-sureties: When a surety has paid more than his share of debt to the creditor, he has a right of contribution from the co-securities who are equally bound to pay with him. A, B and C are sureties to D for the sum of Rs. 3,000 lent to E who makes default in payment. A, B and C are liable, as between themselves to pay Rs. 1,000 each. If any one of them has to pay more than Rs. 1,000 he can claim contribution from the other two to reduce his payment to only Rs. 1,000. If one of them becomes insolvent, the other two shall have to contribute the unpaid amount equally. Discharge of Surety A surety may be discharged from liability under the following circumstances: (a) By notice of revocation in case of a continuing guarantee as regards future transaction (Section 130.) (b) By the death of the surety as regards future transactions, in a continuing

guarantee in the absence of a contract to the contrary (Section 131). (c) Any variation in the terms of the contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, without the consent of the surety, discharges the surety as regards all transactions taking place after the variation (Section 133). (d) A surety will be discharged if the creditor releases the principal debtor, or acts or makes an omission which results in the discharge of the principal debtor (Section 134). But where the creditor fails to sue the principal debtor within the limitation period, the surety is not discharged.

(e) Where the creditor, without the consent of the surety, makes an arrangement with the principal debtor for composition, or promises to give time or not to sue him, the surety will be discharged (Section 135). (f) If the creditor does any act which is against the rights of the surety, or omits to do an act which his duty to the surety requires him to do, and the eventual remedy of the surety himself against the principal debtor is thereby impaired, the surety is discharged (Section 139). (g) If the creditor loses or parts with any security which at the time of the contract he debtor had given in favour of the creditor, the surety is discharged to the extent of the value of the security, unless the surety consented to the release of such security by creditor in favour of the debtor. It is immaterial whether the surety was or is aware of such security or not (Section 141). Illustrations (1) A guarantees to B, to the extent of Rs. 10,000, that C shall pay all the bills that B shall draw upon him. B draws upon C, C accepts the bill. A gives notice of revocation, C dishonours the bill at maturity. A is liable upon his guarantee (Section 130). (2) A becomes surety to C for Bs conduct as a manager in Cs bank. Afterwards B and C contract without As consent that Bs salary shall be raised and that he shall become liable for one-fourth of the losses on overdrafts. B allows a customer to overdraw and the bank loses a sum of money. A is discharged from his suretyship by the variance made without his consent, and is not liable to make good this loss (Section 133). (3) C contracts to lend B Rs. 5,000 on 1st March, A guarantees repayment. C pays the money to B on 1st of January. A is discharged from his liability, as the contract has been varied in as much as C might sue B for the money before 1st of March, (Section 133). (4) X contracts with B to build a house for a fixed price for B within a stipulated time, B supplying the necessary timber. Z guarantees Xs performance. B omits to supply the timber. Z is discharged from liability (Section 134).

(5) B contracts to build a ship for C for a given sum, to be paid by instalments as the work reaches certain stages. A becomes surety to C for Bs due performance of the contract. C, without the knowledge of A, prepays to B the last two instalments. A is discharged by this prepayment (Section 139).

BAILMENT

(a) Bailment A bailment is a transaction whereby one person delivers goods to another person for some purpose, upon a contract that they are, when the purpose is accomplished to be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them (Section 148). The person who delivers the goods is called the bailorand the person to whom they are delivered is called the bailee. Bailment is a voluntary delivery of goods for a temporary purpose on the understanding that they are to be returned in specie in the same or altered form. The ownership of the goods remains with the bailor, the bailee getting only the possession. Delivery of goods may be actual or constructive, e.g., where the key of a godown is handed over to another person, it amounts to delivery of goods in the godown.

Gratuitous Bailment
A gratuitous bailment is one in which neither the bailor nor the bailee is entitled to any remuneration. Such a bailment may be for the exclusive benefit of the bailor, e.g. when A leaves his dog with a neighbour to be looked after in As absence on a holiday. It may again be for exclusive benefit of the bailee, e.g., where you lend yourbook to a friend of yours for a week. In neither case any charge is made. A gratuitous bailment terminates by the death of either the bailor or the bailee(Section 162).Under Section 159 the lender of a thing for use may at any time require its return if the loan was gratuitous, even though he lent it for a specified time or purpose. But if on the faith of such loan made for a specified time or purpose, the borrower has acted in such a manner that the return of the thing lent before the time agreed upon would cause him loss exceeding the benefit actually derived by him from the loan, the lender must, if he compels the return, indemnify the borrower the amount in which the loss so occasioned exceeds the benefit so derived.

Duties & Rights of Bailor and Bailee

To disclose known faults The bailor is bound to disclose to the bailee faults in the goods bailed, of which the bailor is aware, and which materially interfere with the use of them, or expose the bailee to extraordinary risk; and if he does not make such disclosure, he is responsible for damage arising to the bailee directly from such faults. Illustrations (a) A lends a horse, which he knows to be vicious, to B. He does not disclose the fact that the horse is vicious. The horse runs away. B is thrown and injured. A is responsible to B for damage sustained. (b) A hires a carriage of B. The carriage is unsafe, though B is not aware of it, and A is injured. B is responsible to A for the injury. To bear extraordinary expenses of bailment Where, by the conditions of the bailment, the goods are to be kept or to be carried, or to have work done upon them by the bailee for the bailor, and the bailee is to receive no remuneration, the bailors shall repay to the bailee the necessary expenses incurred by him for the purpose of the bailment. To indemnify bailee for loss in case of premature termination of gratuitous bailment The lender of a thing for use may at any time require its return, if the loan was gratuitous, even though he lent it for a specified time or purpose. But if, on the faith of such loan made for a specified time or purpose, the borrower has acted in such a manner that the return of the thing lent before the time agreed upon would cause him losses exceeding the benefit actually derived by him from the loan, the lender must, if he compels the return. indemnify the borrower for the amount in which the loss so occasioned exceeds the benefits so derived.

To receive back the goods It is the duty of the bailee to return, or deliver according to the bailor's directions, the goods bailed, without demand, as soon as the time for which they were bailed has expired, or the purpose for which they were bailed has been accomplished. To indemnify the bailee The bailor is responsible to the bailee for any loss which the bailee may sustain the reason that the bailor was not entitled to make the bailment, or to receive back the goods, or to give directions, respecting them. Duties of bailee 1. To take reasonable care of goods bailed In all cases of bailment the bailee is bound to take as much care of the goods bailed to him as a man of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods of the same bulk, quantity and value as the goods bailed. (Sec. 151) The bailee, in the absence of any special contract, is not responsible for the loss, destruction or deterioration of the thing bailed, if he has taken the amount of care of it described in section 151. (Sec. 152) 2. Not to make any unauthorized use of goods If the bailee makes any use of the goods bailed which is not according to the conditions of the bailment, he is liable to make compensation to the bailor for any damage arising to the goods from or during such use of them. Illustrations (a) A lends a horse to B for his own riding only. B allows C, a member of his family, to ride the horse. C rides with care, but the horse accidentally falls and is injured. B is liable to make compensation to A for the injury done to the horse. (b) A hires a horse in Calcutta from B expressly to march to Banaras. Arides with due care, but marches to Cuttack instead. The horse accidentally falls and is injured. A is liable to make compensation to B for the injury to the horse.

3. Not to mix the goods bailed with his own goods If the bailee, with the consent of the bailor, mixes the goods of the bailor with his own goods, the bailor and the bailee shall have an interest, in proportion to their respective shares, in the mixture thus produced. 4. To return any accretion to the goods In the absence of any contract to the contrary, the baliee must return to the bailor any increase, or profits which may have accrued from the goods bailed; for example, when A leaves a cow in the custody of B to be taken care of and the cow gets a calf, B is bound is deliver the cow as well as the calf to A (Section 163). 5. To return the goods It is the duty of the bailee to return the goods without demand on the expiry of the time fixed or when the purpose is accomplished (Section 160). If he fails to return them, he shall be liable for any loss, destruction or deterioration of the goods even without negligence on his part (Section 161).

Rights of bailor
1. Enforcement of rights The bailor can enforce by suit all the liabilities or duties of the bailee, as his rights. 2. Avoidance of contract A contract of bailment is voidable at the option of the bailor, if the bailee does any act with regard to the foods bailed, inconsistent with the conditions of the bailment. Illustration A lets to B, for hire, a horse for his own riding. B drives the horse in his carriage. This is, at the option of A, a termination of the bailment.

3. Return of goods lent gratuitously The lender of a thing for use may at any time require its return, if the loan was gratuitous, even through he lent it for a specified time or purpose. But if, on the faith of such loan made for a specified time or purpose, the borrower has acted in such a manner that the return of the thing lent before the time agreed upon would cause him losses exceeding the benefit actually derived by him from the loan, the lender must, if he compels the return. indemnify the borrower for the amount in which the loss so occasioned exceeds the benefits so derived. 4. Compensation from a wrong-doer If a third person wrongfully deprives the bailee of the use of possession of goods bailed, or does them any injury, the bailee is entitled to use such remedies as the owner might have used in the like case if no bailment has been made; and either the bailor or the bailee may bring a suit against a third person for such deprivation or injury.

Rights of bailee
1. Delivery of goods to one of several joint bailers of goods If several joint owners of goods bail them, the bailee may deliver them back to, or according to the directions of, one joint owner without the consent of all in the absence of any agreement to the contrary. 2. Delivery of goods to bailor without title If the bailor has no title to the goods, and the bailee, in good faith, delivers them back to, or according to the directions of the bailor, the bailee is not responsible to the owner in respect of such delivery. 3. Right to apply to court to stop delivery If a person, other than the bailor, claims goods bailed he may apply to the court to stop delivery of the goods to the bailor, and to decide the title to the goods.

4. Right of action against trespassers I f a third person wrongfully deprives the bailee of the use of possession of goods bailed, or does them any injury, the bailee is entitled to use such remedies as the owner might have used in the like case if no bailment has been made; and either the bailor or the bailee may bring a suit against a third person for such deprivation or injury. 5. Bailees lien Where the lawful charges of the bailee in respect of the goods bailed are not paid, he may retain the goods. This rights of the bailee to retain the goods is knows as particular lien. Law relation to Lien Lien means the right of a person to retain possession of some goods belonging to others until some debt or claim of the person in possession is satisfied. Right of lien may arise: 1. 2. 3. By statue By express or implied contract By a general course of dealing between the parties in particular trade

A lien be: 1. Particular lien:A particular lien is one which is available only against that property of which the skill and labour have been exercised. A bailees lien is a particular lien. 2. General lien: A general lien is a right to detain any property belonging to the other and in the possession of the person trying to exercise the lien in respect of any payment lawfully due to him. Finder of goods A person who finds goods belonging to another, and takes them into his custody, is subject to the same responsibility as a bailee.

Rights of finder of goods 1. Right of lien: The finder of goods has no right to use the owner for compensation for trouble and expense, voluntary incurred by him to preserve the goods and to find out the owner; but he may retain the goods again the owner until he receive such compensation; and where the owner has offered a specific required for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he received it. 2. Right of sale When thing which is commonly the subject of sale is lost, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found, or if he refuses upon demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder may sell it (1) when the thing is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its value, or (2) when the lawful charges of the finder, in respect of the thing found, amount to two-thirds of its value. 3. Termination of bailment Where the bailee wrongfully uses or dispose of the goods bailed, the bailor may determine the bailment (Section 153.) As soon as the period of bailment expires or the object of the bailment has been achieved, the bailment comes to an end, and the bailee must return the goods to the bailor (Section 160). Bailment is terminated when the subject matter of bailment is destroyed or by reason of change in its nature, becomes incapable of use for the purpose of bailment A gratuitous bailment can be terminated by the bailor at any time, even before the agreed time, subject to the limitation that where termination before the agreed period causes loss in excess of benefit, the bailor must compensate the bailee (Section 159). A gratuitous bailment terminates by the death of either the bailor or the bailee(Section 162).

FINDER OF LOST GOODS Finding is not keeping. A finder of lost goods is treated as the bailee of the goods found as such and is charged with the responsibilities of a bailee, besides the responsibility of exercising reasonable efforts in finding the real owner. However, he enjoys certain rights also. His rights are summed up hereunder. 1. Right to retain the goods (Section 168). A finder of lost goods may retain the goods until he receives the compensation for money spent in preserving the goods and/or amount spent in finding the true owner. A finder, however, cannot sue for such compensation. But where, a specific reward has been offered by the owner for the return of goods lost, the finder may sue for such reward, and may retain the goods until he receives it. 2. Right to Sell (Section 169). When a thing which is commonly the subject of sale is lost, if the owner cannot with reasonable diligence be found or if he refuses, upon demand, to pay the lawful charges of the finder, the finder may sell it: (1) when the thing is in danger of perishing or of losing the greater part of its value; (2) When the lawful charges of the finder in respect of the thing found, amount to 2/3rd of its value.

PLEDGE

Pledge
Section 172 defines a pledge as the bailment of goods as security for payment of debt or performance of a promise. Bailment, as per Section 148, means the delivery of goods by one person to another for some purpose, under a contract that the goods shall, when the purpose is accomplished, be returned or otherwise disposed of according to the directions of the person delivering them. The person who delivers the goods, as security is called the pledgorand the person to whom the goods are so delivered is called the pledgee. The ownership remains with the pledgor. It is only a qualified property that passes to the pledgee. He acquires a special priority and lien which is not of ordinary nature and so long as his loan is not repaid, no other creditor or authority can take away the goods or its price. Thus, in Bank of Bihar vs State of Bihar and Others. (1971 Comp. Cas. 591), where sugar pledged with the Bank was seized by the Government of Bihar, the Court ordered the State Government of Bihar to reimburse the bank with such amount as the Bank in the ordinary course would have realised by the sale of sugar seized.

Delivery Essential.
A pledge is created only when the goods are delivered by the borrower to the lender or to someone on his behalf with the intention of their being treated as security against the advance. Delivery of goods may, however, be actual or constructive. It is constructive delivery where either the key of a godown in which the goods are kept, or documents of title to the goods are delivered. Similarly, where the goods continue to remain in the borrowers possession but are agreed to be held as a bailee on behalf of the pledge and subject to the pledgees order, it amounts to constructive delivery and tantamounts to valid pledge (Reeves vs Capper). In Madras Official Assignee vs Mercantile Bank of India Ltd., 1935, the Official Assignees contention, that pledge of a railway receipt with a bank did not amount to a valid pledge, was turned down by Lord Wright. He stated that railway receipts in India were documents of title and that the pledge of a railway receipt by a trader to the bank, duly endorsed, constituted a valid pledge of the goods. The Supreme Court of India endorsed the same view in the case of Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. vs

Union of India, 1965, stating that the owner of the goods can create a valid pledge by transferring to the creditor the documents of title relating to the goods. Under English Law, however, the delivery of documents of title to goods (except a bill of lading) by the owner of the goods to the lender is not considered as a valid pledge.

ADVANTAGES OF PLEDGE To a creditor, pledge is perhaps the most satisfactory mode of creating a charge on Securities. It offers the following advantages: 1. The goods are in the possession of the creditor and, therefore, in case the borrower makes a default in payment, they can be disposed of after a reasonable notice. 2. Stocks cannot be manipulated as they are under the lenders possession and control. 3. In the case of insolvency of the borrower, creditor can sell the goods and prove for the balance of the debt, if any. 4. There is hardly any possibility of the same goods being charged with some other party if actual possession of the goods is taken by the creditor.

PLEDGE BY NON-OWNERS The general rule is that it is the owner who can ordinarily create a valid pledge. However in the following cases, even a pledge by non-owners shall be valid: 1. Pledge by mercantile agent. Where a mercantile agent is, with the consent of the owner, in possession of goods or the documents of title to goods, any pledge made by him, when acting in the ordinary course of business of a mercantile agent, shall be as valid as if he were expressly authorised by the owner of the goods to make the same. Such a pledge shall, however, be valid only if the pawnee acts in good faith and has not at the time of the pledge notice that the pawnor has not the authority to pledge.

A mercantile agent as per Sec. 2(9) of the Sale of Goods (Act 1930), means a mercantile agent having in the customary course of business, as such agent authority either to sell goods or to consign goods for the purpose of sale or to buy goods or to raise money on the security of goods. For a pledge by a mercantile agent to be valid the following conditions must be satisfied: (a) Good faith. The pledgee must have acted in good faith and must not have at the time of the pledge notice that the pawnor had no authority to pledge the goods. The onus of proving both these facts rests upon the person disputing the validity of the pledge [Stadium Finance vs Robbins (1962) 2 Q.B. 664 (673).]. (b) Acting in the ordinary course of business. The mercantile agent must have acted in the ordinary course of his business. If he, therefore, does the business outside his business premises or out of business hours, such a transaction would fall outside this section [Coppenheimer vs Attenborough & Son (1908) 1 K.B. 221.].

2. Pledge by seller or buyer in possession after sale. Under Section 30 of the Sale of Goods Act, a seller left in possession of goods after sale and a buyer who obtains possession of goods with the consent of the seller, before sale, can create a valid pledge. Once again, for the pledge to be valid, the pledgee should have acted in good faith and without notice of previous sale of goods to the buyer or of the lien of the seller over the goods.

3. Pledge by person in possession under a voidable contract (Sec. 178-A). Where a person obtains possession of goods under a voidable contract the pledge created by him is valid8 provided: (a) the contract has not been rescinded before the contract of pledge, and (b) the pawnee acts in good faith and without notice of the pawnors defect of title.

4. Pledge by co-owner in possession. One of several joint owners of goods in sole possession thereof with the consent of the rest may make a valid pledge of the goods [Shadi Ram vs Mehtab Chand (1895) Punj].

5. Pledge by a person having limited interest (Sec. 179). Where a person pledges goods in which he has only a limited interest, the pledge is valid to the extent of that interest. Thus, a pledgee may further pledge goods to the extent of the amount advanced thereupon.

RIGHTS OF A PLEDGEE According to (Section 176), in case, the pledgor fails to pay his debt or complete the performance of obligation at the stipulated time, the pledgee can exercise any of the following rights: 1. Bring suit against the pledgor upon the default in redemption of the debt or performance of promise; and retain possession of goods pledged as collateral security; or 2. Sell the things pledged on giving the pledgor reasonable notice of sale. In case, the goods pledged when sold do not fully meet the amount of the debt, pledgee can proceed for the balance. If, on the other hand, there is any surplus that has to be accounted for to the pledgor. Before sale can be executed, a reasonable notice must be given to pledgor so that (a) the pledgor may meet his obligation as a last chance. (b) he can supervise the sale to see that it fetches the right price. In Prabhat Bank Ltd. vs Babu Ram (A.I.R. 1966, Allahabad 134), the learned judge observed that What is contemplated by Section 176 is not merely a notice but a reasonable notice, meaning thereby a notice of intended sale of the security by the creditor within a certain date so as to afford an opportunity to the debtor to pay up the amount within the time mentioned in the notice.

Notice of sale is essential even where the agreement specifically excludes it. In the above case, the Allahabad High Court held that such a clause in the agreement would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and as such void and unenforceable. However, the sale made by the pledgee without giving a reasonable notice to the pledgor is not void, i.e., cannot be set aside. The pledgee will be liable to the pledgor for the damages. In addition to the rights mentioned in (Section 176), a pledgee has the following rights: 1. It is the duty of the pledgor to disclose any defects or faults in the goods pledged which are within his knowledge. Similarly, if the goods are of an abnormal character

Rights of a Pledgee 1. Right to sue the pledgor on default. 2. Rights to sell the things pledged on giving the pledgor reasonable notice of the sale. 3. Right to claim damages because of non-disclosure of any defects or faults in goods pledged. 4. Right to claim damages suffered because of defective title of the pledgor. 5. Pledgees rights are not limited to his interest in goods. 6. Right to recover any extraordinary expenditure. 138 Law, Ethics & Communication say, explosives or fragile, the pledgee must be informed. In case the pledgor fails to inform such faults or abnormal character of the goods pledged, any damage as a result of non-disclosure shall have to be compensated by the pledgor; 2. The pledgee has a right to claim any damages suffered because of the defective title of the pledgor. 3. A pledgees rights are not limited to his interest in the pledged goods. In case of injury to the goods or their deprivation by a third party he would have all such

remedies that the owner of the goods would have against them. In Morvi Mercantile Bank Ltd. vs Union of India, the Supreme Court held that the bank (pledgee) was entitled to recover not only Rs. 20,000, the amount due to it, but the full value of the consignment, i.e., Rs. 35,500. However the amount over and above his interest is to be held by him in trust for the pledgor. 4. A pledgee has a right to recover any extraordinary expenditure incurred for the preservation of the goods pledged.

DUTIES OF A PLEDGEE 1. The pledgee is required to take as much care of the goods pledged to him as a person of ordinary prudence would, under similar circumstances, take of his own goods, of a similar nature. 2. The pledgee must not put the goods to an unauthorised use. 3. The pledgee is bound to return the goods on payment of the debt. 4. Any accruals to the goods pledged belong to the pledgor and should be delivered accordingly. Thus, for example, if the security consists of equity shares and the company issues bonus shares to the equity shareholders, the bonus shares are the property of the pledgor and not the pledgee (M.R. Dhawan vs Madan Mohan and others).

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF PLEDGOR Rights 1. The pledgor has a right to claim back the security pledged on repayment of the debt with interest and other charges. 2. The pledgor has a right to receive a reasonable notice in case the pledgee intends to sell the goods and in case he does not receive the notice, he shall have a right to claim any loss that may result on such sale.

3. In case of sale, the pledgor is entitled to receive from the pledgee any surplus that may remain with him after the debt is completely paid off. 4. The pledgor has a right to claim any accruals to the goods pledged. 5. If any loss is caused to the goods because of mishandling or negligence on the part of the pledgee, the pledgor has a right to claim the same. Special Contracts 139 Duties 1. A pledgor must disclose to the pledgee any material faults or extraordinary risks in the goods to which the pledgee may be exposed. 2. A pledgor is responsible to meet any extraordinary expenditure incurred by the pledgee for the preservation of the goods. 3. Where the pledgee has exercised his right of sale of goods, any shortfall has to be made good by the pledgor. 4. The pledgor is liable for any loss caused to the pledgee because of defects in his (pledgors) title to the goods.

AGENCY

DEFINITION OF AN AGENT (SECTION 182) An agent is defined by the Section as a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third person. In other words, an agent is a person who acts in place of another. The person for whom or on whose behalf he acts is called the Principal. For example, A appoints B a broker to sell his Fiat car on his behalf. A is the principal and B, is his agent. The relationship between A and B is called Agency. Agency is therefore, a relation based upon an express or implied agreement whereby one person, the agent, is authorised to act for another, his principal, in transactions with third person. The function of an agent is to bring about contractual relations between the principal and third parties. Thus, an agent is merely a connecting link between the principal and the third party and is rightly called a conduit pipe. Acts of the agent within the scope of the instructions bind the principal as if he has done them himself. Qui facit per alium facit per se is the principle of agency, which means He who does through another does by himself. In simple words, the act of an agent is the act of the principal.

WHO CAN EMPLOY AN AGENT? Any person who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject and who is of sound mind, may employ an agent (Section 183). Thus, a minor or lunatic cannot ontract through an agent since they cannot contract themselves personally either. If an gent acts for a minor or lunatic, he will be personally liable to the third party. Groups of ersons may also appoint an agent; for instance, a partnership firm, may transact through n agent. Certain groups of persons, because of their very nature of their organisation, must act through agent, e.g., a company, which is an artificial person and thus can transact business only through an agent.

WHO MAY BE AN AGENT? Since agent is a mere connecting link or a conduit pipe between the principal and the third party, it is immaterial whether or not the agent is legally competent to contract. Thus, there is no bar to the appointment of a minor as an agent. However, in considering the contract of agency itself (i.e., the relation between principal and agent), the contractual capacity of the agent becomes important. (Section 184) reads, As between the principal and third persons any person may become an agent, but no person who is not of the age of majority and of sound mind can become an agent, so as to be responsible to his principal according to the provisions in that behalf. Thus, if the agent happens to be a person incapable of contracting, then the principal cannot hold the agent liable, in case he misconducts or has been negligent in performance of his duties. Example X appoints Y, a minor, to sell his car for not less than Rs. 15,000. Y sells it for Rs. 14,000. X will be held bound by the transaction and further shall have no right against Y for claiming the compensation for having not obeyed the instructions, since Y is a minor and a contract with a minor is void-ab-initio.

AGENT AND SERVANT An agent must be distinguished from servant. A servant acts under the direct control and supervision of his master and is bound to carry out all his reasonable orders. An agent, on the other hand, though bound to exercise his authority in accordance with lawful instruction of the principal is not subject to his direct supervision and control. An agent, therefore, is not a servant, though a servant may for some purposes, be his masters agent. Further, as agent may work for several principals at the same time; a servant usually serves only one master.

CREATION OF AGENCY A contract of agency may be created by (1) an express agreement (2) implication (implied agreement, or (3) by ratification. Note that, consideration is not essential to create an agency (Section 185). The fact that the principal has consented to be represented by the agent is a sufficient detriment and consideration to support the promise of the agent to act in that capacity. However, in case no consideration has passed to the agent, he is not bound to do the agreed work but once he begins, he must complete it to the satisfaction of the principal. Express Agency (Section 187) A person may be appointed agent, either by word of mouth or by writing. No particular form is required for appointing an agent. The usual form of a written contract of agency is the power of attorney on a stamped paper. Implied Agency (Section 187) Implied agency arises from the conduct, situation or relationship of parties. Implied agency, therefore, includes agency by estoppel, agency by holding out and agency of necessity. Agency by Estoppel (Section 237) When a person has by his conduct or statements induced others to believe that a certain person is his agent, he is estopped from subsequently denying it. Lord Halsbury says, Estoppel arises when you an precluded from denying the truth of anything which you have represented as a fact, although it is not a fact. Examples (1) P allows A telling C that A is Ps agent. Later on, C supplies certain goods to A thinking him to be Ps agent. P shall be held liable to pay the price to C. By allowing A to represent himself as his agent, P leads C to believe that A is really his agent. (2) A owns a shop in Serampur, living himself in Kolkata, and visiting the shop occasionally. The shop is managed by B and he is in the habit of ordering goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop, and of paying for them out of

As funds with As knowledge. B has an implied authority from A to order goods from C in the name of A for the purposes of the shop.

Agency by Holding Out

Though part of the law of estoppels, some affirmative conduct by the principal is necessary in creation of agency by holding out. Example P allows his servant A to buy goods for him on credit from C and pays for them regularly. On one occasion, P pays his servant cash to purchase the goods. The servant purchases the goods on credit pocketing the money. C can recover the price from P since through previous dealings P has held out his servant A as his agent. Agency of Necessity (Section 189) This arises where there is no express or implied appointment of a person as agent or another but he is forced to act on behalf of a particular person. Examples (1) The Master of a ship which is in distress or requires heavy and urgent repairs can pledge the ship or cargo (without express or implied authority) and raise money in order to execute the voyage. He will be considered as the agent of the owner by necessity. (2) A horse was sent by rail and at the destination it was not taken delivery of by the owner. The station master had to feed the horse. Held, station master became the agent by necessity and hence the owner must compensate him.9 9. Great Northern Railway vs Swaflield (1874) L.R.S. Ex 132. The doctrine of agency by necessity also extends to cases where an agent exceeds his authority provided (a) it was not reasonably possible to get the principals instructions; (b)the agent had taken all reasonable and necessary steps to protect the interests of the principal;and (c) he acted bona fide.

Agency By Ratification (Sections 196-200) Where an agent does an act for his principal but without knowledge or authority or where he exceeds the given authority, the principal is not held bound by the transaction. However, Section 196 permits the principal, if he so desires, to ratify the act of the agent. If so selects it will have the same effect as if the act was originally done by his authority. Agency in such a case is said to be created by ratification. In other words, the agency is taken to have come into existence from the moment the agent first acted and not from the date of principals ratification. The rule is that every ratification relates back and is equivalent to a previous command or authority. Example The case of Bolton Partners vs Lambert is a good illustration on the point. In this case, L made an offer to X, managing director of a company. X accepted the offer though he had no authority to do so. L subsequently withdrew the offer, but the company ratified Xs acceptance. Held L was bound. The ratification related back to the time X accepted the offer, thus rendering the revocation of the offer inoperative. An offer once accepted cannot be withdrawn. Notice that, for the rule of relation back to apply, the agent while accepting an offer should not show lack of authority, e.g., where he accepts subject to ratification; the rule of relation back does not apply and revocation shall be valid, if communicated prior to such ratification. Ratification may be Express or Implied (Section 197) Following are some examples of Implied Ratification: (1) A without Ps authority lends Ps money to X. Later P accepts interest on the money from X. Ps conduct implies ratification of the loan. (2) A without Ps authority buys certain goods for him. Afterwards, P sells those goods to X. Ps conduct ratify the purchase made by A.

Requisites of a Valid Ratification

To be valid, a ratification must fulfil the following conditions: 1. The agent must contract as agent; he must not allow the third party to imagine that he is the principal. A man cannot enter into a contract at his own and later shift it to another. 2. The principal must have been in existence at the time the agent originally acted. This condition is significant in case of joint stock companies. The preliminary contracts entered into by promoters of a company on its behalf cannot be ratified by the company after incorporation because, if permitted, ratification will relate back to the point of time when promoters originally acted and at that time the company was not in existence. 3. The principal must not only be in existence but must also have contractual apacity at the time of the contract as well as at the time of ratification. Thus, a minor on whose behalf a contract is made cannot ratify it on attaining majority. 4. Ratification must be made within a reasonable time. What is reasonable time shall vary from case to case. 5. The act to be ratified must be a lawful one. There can be no ratification of an illegal act or an act which is void-ab-initio. 6. The principal should have full knowledge of the facts. (Section 198) states No valid ratification can be made by a person whose knowledge of the facts of the case is materially defective. 7. Ratification must be of a contract as a whole. The principal cannot reject the burdens and accept only the benefits. 8. Ratification of facts not within the Principals authority is ineffective. This again basically is relevant in case of companies. Acts of directors which are ultra vires the powers of a company cannot be ratified by the company. 9. Ratification cannot be made so as to subject a third party to damages or terminate any right or interest of a third person (Section 200).

10. Kelner vs Baxter (1896).

CLASSIFICATION OF AGENTS Agents may be classified from different points of view. One broad classification of agents is: (1) mercantile or commercial agents, and (2) non-mercantile or noncommercial agents. Another classification of agents is: (1) general, and (2) special. A special agent is a person appointed to do some particular act or enter into some particular contract. A special agent, therefore, has only a limited authority to do the specified act. If he does anything beyond the specified act, he runs the risk of being personally liable since the principal may not ratify the same. A general agent, on the other hand, is one who is appointed to represent the principal in all matters concerning a particular business, e.g., manager of firm or managing director of a company.

Mercantile or Commercial Agents

A mercantile or commercial agent may assume any of the following forms: 1. Broker. A broker is a mercantile agent engaged to buy and/or sell property or to make bargains and contracts between the engager and a third party for a commission (called brokerage). Unlike a factor, a broker has no possession of goods or property.11 He is merely a connecting link between the engager and a third party. The usual method of dealing by a broker is to make entries of the terms of contract in a book, called the memorandum book, and to sign them. He then sends the particulars of the same to both parties. The document sent to the seller is called the sold note and the one sent to the buyer is called the bought note.

2. Factor. A factor is a mercantile agent who is entrusted with the possession of goods with an authority to sell the same. He can even sell the goods on credit and in his own name. He is also authorised to raise money on their security. A factor has a general lien on the goods in possession. A factor, however, cannot barter the goods unless expressly authorised to do so. Also, he cannot delegate his authority. 3. Commission Agent. A commission agent is an agent who is employed to buy or sell goods or transact business. The remuneration that he gets for the purpose is called the commission. A commission agent is not liable in case the third party fails to carry out the agreed obligation. A commission agent may have possession of the goods or not. His lien is a particular lien. 4. Del credere Agent. A del credere agent is one who, in consideration of an extra remuneration, called a del credere commission, guarantees the performance of the contract by the other party. A del credere thus occupies the position of a guarantor, as well as an agent. A del credere agent is normally appointed in case of deals with foreign nationals, about whom the principal knows nothing. In Fazal vs Mangaldass, the certified brokers of the Bombay Native Stock and Share Brokers Association were held as the del credere agents of their constituents. 5. Auctioneer. An auctioneer is an agent appointed to sell goods by auction. He can deliver the goods only on receipt of the price. An auctioneer can recover the price from the highest bidder (i.e. the buyer) by filing a suit in his own name. Under English Law, an auctioneer is also the agent of the buyer for the purpose of signing the memorandum, under English Sale of Goods Act. The position of an aucioneer differs from a factor in as much as he has a particular lien, whereas the factor has a general lien. In Marsh vs Jeff, 1862 it was held that an auctioneer is authorised to sell only through public auction and therefore cannot sell by private contract. 6. Banker. Though the relationship between banker and customer is ordinarily that of debtor or creditor, he acts as an agent when he buys or sells securities on his behalf. Similarly, when he collects cheques, bills, interest, dividend etc., or when he pays insurance premium out of customers account, as per customers mandate, he acts as his agent.

7. Pakka and Katcha Adatias. A Pakka Adatia is a person who guarantees the performance of the contract, not only to his principal but also to the broker (Shroff) on the other side. A peculiarity of pakka adatia is that he can himself perform the contract instead of offering to the third party. A Katcha Adatia, on the other hand, does not guarantee the performance of the contract. However, he guarantees the performance on the part of the principal. Thus, he will be responsible to the other broker or shroff who contracts on behalf of the other party, in case of nonperformance by his principal. 8. Indentor. An indentor is commission agent, who, for a commission, procures a sale or a purchase on behalf of his principal, with a merchant in a foreign country. According to custom judicially recognised in Bombay, such agent can charge commission at the rates mentioned in the indent . Non-Mercantile or Non-Commercial Agents The most prominent agent in this category that deserves mention is wife as the agent of her husband.

Wife as the Agent How far is the wife agent of her husband? The following principles provide the impressive guidelines: 1. If the wife and husband are living together, and the wife is looking for necessaries, she is an agent.12 But this presumption may be rebutted and the husband may escape liability if he can prove that: (a) he had expressly forbidden his wife from purchasing anything on credit or from borrowing money; (b) the goods purchased were not necessaries; (c) he had given sufficient money to his wife for purchasing necessaries; or (d) trader had been expressly told not to give credit to his wife. 2. Where the wife lives apart from the husband, through no fault of hers, the husband is liable to provide for her maintenance. If he does not provide for her maintenance, she has implied authority to bind the husband for necessaries, i.e., he would be bound to pay her bills for necessaries. But, where the wife lives apart under no

justifiable circumstances, she is not her husbands agent and thus cannot bind him even for necessaries. Besides, Estate Agents, Counsels (Advocates), Attorneys etc., are other instances of non-commercial agents.

Sub-Agents and Substituted Agents (Sections 190-195)

The general rule is that an agent cannot appoint an agent. Delegatus non potest delegare is the governing rule. It means a delegate cannot further delegate. An agent being a delegate cannot transfer his duties to another. The principle underlying the rule is that the principal engages an agent ordinarily on personal consideration and thus may not have the same confidence in the person appointed by the agent. Hence, sub-agency is not generally recognised. However, (Section 190) deals with the circumstances as to when and how far an agent can delegate his duties. An agent may appoint an agent in the following circumstances: (1) Where expressly permitted by the principal; (2) where the ordinary custom of trade permits delegation; (3) the nature of agency is such that it cannot be accomplished without the appointment of a sub-agent; (4) where the nature of the job assigned to the agent is purely clerical and does not involve the exercise of discretion, e.g., if A is appointed to type certain papers, but because of lack of time, he assigns the job to another equally competent typist B, the delegation is valid; (5) in an unforeseen emergency (Section 190). Under the above mentioned circumstances, if an agent appoints another person in the matter of the agency, that other person may assume the position of either a sub-agent or a substituted agent. Who is a Sub-Agent? (Section 191) states that a sub-agent is a person employed by, and acting under the control of the original agent in the business of the agency. Since the sub-agent is appointed by the act and under the control of the agent there is no privity of contract between the sub-agent and the principal. The sub-agent, therefore, cannot sue the principal for remuneration and similarly, the principal cannot sue the sub-agent for any money due from him. Each of them can proceed only against his immediate

contracting party, viz., the agent except where the sub-agent is guilty of fraud. In that case, the principal has a concurrent right to proceed against the agent and the subagent. A sub-agent properly appointed can, however, represent the principal and bind him for his acts as if he were an agent originally appointed by the principal. But where an agent, without without having authority to do so, has appointed a subagent, the principal is not represented by or responsible for the acts of such a subagent. He (the sub-agent) can only bind the agent by contracts entered into with third parties. Substituted Agent Where an agent appoints or names other person for being appointed as an agent in his place, such person is called a substituted agent. In the words of (Section 194), where an agent, holding an express or implied authority to name another person accordingly, such person is not a sub-agent but an agent of the principal for such part of the business of the agency as is entrusted to him. Examples (1) A directs B, his solicitor, to sell his estate by auction, and to employ an auctioneer for the purpose. B names C, an auctioneer, to conduct the sale. C is not a sub-agent, but is As agent for the conduct of the sale. (2) A authorises B, a merchant in Kolkata, to recover the money due to A from C & Co. B instructs D, a solicitor to take proceedings against C & Co., for the recovery of the money. D is not a sub-agent but is solicitor for A (Section 194).

DUTIES OF AGENT The duties of an agent towards his principal are: 1. To conduct the business of agency according to the principals directions (Section 211). This duty of the agent has to be literally complied with, i.e., the agent is not supposed to deviate from the directions of the principal even for the principals benefit. If he does so, any loss occasioned thereby shall have to be borne by the agent, whereas, any surplus must be accounted for to the principal. Thus, in Lilley vs

Doubleday (1881), 7 Q.B.D 590, A was directed by his principal to warehouse the goods at a particular warehouse. A warehoused a portion of the goods at another place, equally good but cheaper. Those goods were destroyed by fire. Held: The agent A was liable to make good the loss. Similarly, where the principal instructed his agent to deliver goods only against cash but the agent delivered them on credit, he was held liable for the price which the purchaser failed to pay. [Paul Bier vs Chottalal, 30 Bombay] In the absence of instructions from the principal, however, the agent should follow the custom of the business at the place where it is conducted (Section 211).

Example A, an agent engaged in carrying on for B a business in which it is the custom to invest from time to time, at interest, the money which may be in hand, omits to make such investment. A must make good to B the interest usually obtained by such investment. 2. The agent should conduct the business with the skill and diligence that is generally possessed by persons engaged in similar business, except where the principal knows that the agent is wanting in skill (Section 212). Examples (1) Where a lawyer proceeds under a wrong Section and thereby the case is lost, he shall be liable for the loss. (2) A, an agent for the sale of goods, having authority to sell on credit, sells to B on credit, without making the proper and usual enquiries as to the solvency of B. B, at the time of such sale, is insolvent. A must make compensation to his principal in respect of any loss thereby sustained.

(3) A, an insurance broker, employed by B to effect an insurance on a ship, omits to see that the usual clauses are inserted in the policy. The ship is afterwards lost. In consequence of the omission of the clauses nothing can be recovered from the underwriters. B is bound to make good the loss to A. 3. To render proper accounts (Section 213). Rendering accounts does not mean showing the accounts but the accounts supported by vouchers (Anandprasad vs Dwarkanath, 6 Cal. 574). If the agent fails to keep proper account of the principals business, everything consistent with the proved facts will be presumed against him. 4. In cases of difficulty to communicate with the principal (Section 214). It is the duty of an agent, in case of difficulty, to use all reasonable diligence, in communicating with his principal, and in seeking to obtain his instructions. In case of emergency, however, the agent can do all that a reasonable man would under similar circumstances do with regard to his own goods. He becomes an agent by necessity.14 5. Not to make any secret profits. An agent, except the lawful deductions towards his remuneration and expenses, should deliver to the principal all money including secret commission received by him. 6. Not to deal on his own account. An agent should not deal on his own account without first obtaining the consent of his principal. If he does so, the principal can claim from the agent any benefit which he might have obtained. Example P directs A, his agent, to buy a particular house for him. A tells P it cannot be bought, and buys the house for himself. P may, on discovering that A has bought the house, compel him to sell it to P at the price he bought. Further, in case an agent deals on his own account, he shall cease to be entitled for his remuneration. 7. Agent not entitled to remuneration for business misconducted. An agent who is guilty of misconduct in the business of the agency is not entitled to any remuneration in respect of that part of the business which has been misconduct (Section 220).

Examples (1) A employs B to recover 1,00,000 rupees from C and to lay it out on good security. B recovers 1,00,000 rupees and lays out 90,000 rupees on good security, but lays out 10,000 rupees on security which he ought to have known to be bad whereby A loses 2,000 rupees. B is entitled to remuneration for recovering the 1,00,000 rupees and for investing the 90,000 rupees. He is not entitled to any remuneration for investing the 10,000 rupees and he must make good the 2,000 rupees to A. (2) A employs B to recover 10,000 rupees from C. Through Bs misconduct the money is not recovered. B is entitled to no remuneration for his services, and must make good the loss. 8. An agent should not disclose confidential information supplied to him by the principal [Weld Blundell vs Stephens (1920) A.C. 1956]. 9. When an agency is terminated by the principal dying or becoming of unsound mind, the agent is bound to take on behalf of the representatives of his late principal, all reasonable steps for the protection and preservation of the interests entrusted to him (Section 209).

Duties of an Agent:-Sum up 1. To conduct the business of agency according to the principals directions and not to deviate even for the benefit of the principal. 2. To conduct the business with the skill and diligence generally possessed by persons engaged in similar business. 3. To render proper accounts. 4. In case of difficulty to communicate with the principal. 5. Not to make any secret profits. 6. Not to deal on his own account.

7. Not entitled to remuneration for business misconducted.

RIGHTS OF AN AGENT Following are his rights: 1. Right to Remuneration (Section 219-220). An agent is entitled to his agreed commission or remuneration and if there is no agreement, to a reasonable remuneration. But, the remuneration does not become payable unless he has carried out the object of agency, except where there is a contract to the contrary. Now, when shall the object of agency be deemed to have been carried out or the act assigned to the agent complete, shall depend on the terms of the contract. Thus, commission becomes payable to the broker, when he has procured a party who is willing to negotiate on reasonable terms and is desirous of entering into a contract with the principal. [Sheikh Farid Baksh vs Hasgulal Singh A.I.R. (1937) All 46]. Note that the transaction for which the agent claims remuneration should be the directresult of his services [Green vs Barlett (1863) 14 C.B. (NS). 631]. However, an agent who is guilty of misconduct in the business of agency is not entitled to any remuneration in respect of that part of the business which he has misconducted (Section 220). 2. Right of Retainer (Section 217). An agent may retain, out of any sums received on account of the principal in the business of the agency all money due to himself in respect of advances made or expenses properly incurred by him in conducting such business, and also such remuneration as may be payable to him for acting as agent. This is known as agents right of retainer. However, the right of retainer can only be claimed on moneys received by him in the business of the agency. He cannot, therefore, retain sums received by him in one business for his commission or remuneration in other business on behalf of the same principal. 3. Right of Lien (Section 221). In the absence of any contract to the contrary, an agent is entitled to retain goods, papers and other property, whether movable or immovable of the principal received by him, until the amount due to himself for commission, disbursements and services in respect of the same has been paid or

accounted for to him. This lien of the agent is a particular lien confined to all claims arising in respect of the particular goods and property. By a special contract, however, an agent may get a general lien extending to all claims arising out of the agency. Since, the word lien means retaining possession it can be enjoyed by the agent only where the goods or papers are in actual or constructive possession of the agent. The right of lien will, therefore, be lost, where he parts with the possession of the goods. But if the possession is obtained from the agent by fraud or by unlawful means, his lien is not affected by the loss of possession. 4. Right of Stoppage-in-Transit. This right is available to agent in the following two cases: 1. Also see Raja Ram vs Ganesh Pd. 1959 All. 29; Roopji and Sons vs Dyer Meaken, 1930 All. 545. 2. For illustrations see Duties of Agent, (a) where he has purchased goods on behalf of the principal either with his own funds, or by incurring a personal liability for the price, he stands towards the principal in the position of an unpaid seller. Like an unpaid seller, he enjoys the right of stopping the goods in transit if in the meantime the principal has become insolvent. (b) Where an agent holds himself liable to his principal for the price of the goods sold, for example, del credere agent, he may exercise the unpaid sellers right of stopping the goods in transit in case of buyers insolvency.

5. Right of Indemnification (Sections 222 to 224). The principal is bound to indemnify an agent against the consequences of all lawful acts done by the agent in exercise of authority conferred upon him. Examples (1) B, at Singapore, under instructions from A of Kolkata, contracts with C to deliver certain goods to him. A does not send the goods to B, and C sues B for breach of contract. B informs A of the suit, and A authorises him to defend the suit. B defends

the suit, and is compelled to pay damages and costs, and incurs expenses. A is liable to B for such damages, costs and expenses. (2) B, a broker at Kolkata, by the orders of A, a merchant there, contracts with C for the purpose of 10 casks of oil for A. Afterwards, A refuses to receive the oil and B sues C. B informs A, who repudiates the contract altogether. B defends, but unsuccessfully, and has to pay damages and costs and incurs expenses. A is liable to B for such damages, costs and expenses. Section 223 further provides that an agent shall have right to be indemnified against consequences of acts done in good faith. It reads Where one person employs another to do an act, and the agent does the act in good faith, the employer is liable to indemnify the agent against the consequences of that act, though it causes an injury to the rights of third persons. Example B, at the request of A, sells goods in the possession of A, but which A had no right to dispose of. B does not know this, and hands over the proceeds of the sale to A. Afterwards, C the true owner of goods, sues B and recovers the value of the goods and costs. A is liable to indemnify B for what he has been compelled to pay to C and for Bs own expenses. However, it must be remembered that an agent cannot claim indemnification for a criminal act, even though the principal had agreed to do so (Sec. 224). Examples (1) A employs B to beat C, and agrees to indemnify him against all consequences of that act. B thereupon beats C and has to pay damages to C for so doing. A is not liable to indemnify B for those damages. (2) B, the proprietor of a newspaper, publishes, at As request, a libel (defamation in writing) upon C in the paper and A agrees to indemnify B against the consequences of the publication, and all costs and damages of any action in respect thereof. B is sued by C and has to pay damages and also incurs expenses. A is not liable to B on the indemnity.

6. Right to compensation for injury caused by principals neglect (Section 225). The principal must make compensation to his agent in respect of injury caused to such agent by the principals neglect or want of skill. Example A employs B as a bricklayer in building a house, and puts up the scaffolding himself. The scaffolding is unskilfully put up, and B is in consequence hurt. A must make compensation to B.

PRINCIPALS DUTIES TO AGENT The rights of an agent are in fact the duties of the principal.19 Thus a principal is: (1) bound to indemnify the agent against the consequences of all lawful acts done by such agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him (Section 222); (2) liable to indemnify an agent against the consequences of an act done in good faith, though it causes an injury to the rights of third persons (Section 223); (3) The principal is, however, not liable for acts which are criminal in nature though done by the agent at the instance of the principal (Section 224). (4) The principal must make compensation to his agent in respect of injury caused to such agent by the principals neglect or want of skill (Section 225).

Rights of an Agent 1. Right to receive agreed or reasonable remuneration. 2. Right to retain money of the principal towards advances made or expenses properly incurred by him. 3. Right of lien, i.e., to retain properties of the principal for the amount due to himself for commission, disbursements and services rendered 4. Right of stoppage-in-transit in case:

(i) Where he purchased goods with his own funds or by incurring personal liability; (ii) Where he holds himself liable for the price of goods sold, for example, del credere agent. 5. Right to be indemnified against consequences of all lawful acts done within the authority.

LIABILITY OF PRINCIPAL TO THIRD PERSONS 1. An agent being a mere connecting link binds the principal for all his acts done within the scope of his authority. (Section 226) provides that contracts entered into through an agent, and obligations arising from acts done by an agent, may be enforced in the same manner and will have the same legal consequence, as if the contracts had been entered into and the acts done by the principal in person. Example:A, being Bs agent with authority to receive money on his behalf, receives from C a sum of money due to B. C is discharged of his obligation to pay the sum in question to B. 2. The principal is liable for the acts of the agent falling not only within the actual authority but also within the scope of his apparent or ostensible authority. 3. Where an agent exceeds his authority and the part of what he does, which is within his authority, can be separated from the part which is beyond his authority, so much only of what he does as is within his authority, is binding as between him and the principal (Section 227) . Example:A, being owner of a ship and cargo, authorises B to procure an insurance for Rs. 4,000 on the ship. B procures a policy of Rs. 4,000 on the ship, and another for the like sum on the cargo. A is bound to pay the premium for the policy on the ship, but not the premium for the policy on the cargo.

4. However, where an agent does more than he is authorised to do, and what he does beyond the scope of his authority cannot be separated from what is within it, the principal is not bound by the transaction (Section 228).

Example:An agent is authorised to draw a bill for Rs. 5,000 but he draws a bill for Rs. 10,000, the principal will not be liable even to the extent of Rs. 5,000. 5. Misrepresentations by Agent. The principal will be liable even for

misrepresentations made or frauds committed, by an agent in the business of agency for his own benefit. But, misrepresentations made or frauds committed, by agents in matters beyond their authority, do not affect their principals. (Section 238). Examples:(1) A, being Bs agent for the sale of goods, induces C to buy them by a misrepresentation, which he was not authorised by B to make. The contract is voidable, as between B and C, at the option of C. (2) A, the captain of Bs ship, signs bills of lading without having received on boardthe goods mentioned therein. The bills of lading are void as between B and the pretended consignor. 20. Section 28, The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 6. The prinicipal remains liable to the third parties even where his name was not disclosed. The third parties can, on discovering his name, proceed against him on the contract. 7. The principal is bound by any notice or information given to the agent in the course of business transacted by him. 8. The liability of the principal continues even in cases where agent is held personally liable. (Section 233) provides an option to the third parties to either sue the principalor agent or both.

PERSONAL LIABILITY OF AN AGENT An agent is only a connecting link between the principal and third parties. Being only amedium, he can, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, neither personally enforce contracts entered into by him on behalf of his principal, nor is he personally bound by them (Section 230).From the above discussion, it may be inferred that an agent can enforce contracts personally and be held bound for contracts entered into on behalf of his principal, if there is an agreement to the effect, express or implied. (Section 230) enlists the following cases where a contract to this effect shall be presumed to exist: (1) Where the contract is made by an agent for the sale or purchase of goods for a merchant resident abroad; (2) Where the agent does not disclose the name of his principal; (3) Where the principal, though disclosed, cannot be sued. For instance, where principal is a minor. Besides, an agent incurs a personal liability in the following cases: 1. Breach of Warranty. Where an agent acts either without any authority or exceeds his authority, he is deemed to have committed breach of warranty of authority in such a case. He will be held personally liable if his acts are not ratified by the alleged principal. An agent will be guilty of breach of warranty of authority even where his authority is terminated without his knowledge, e.g., by death or lunacy of the principal [Yonge vs Toynbee (1910) 1 K.B. 215.]. 2. Where an agent expressly agrees to be personally bound. This sort of stipulation may be provided particularly where principal does not enjoy much creditworthiness and the third parties wish to ensure the payment or performance. 3. Where an agent signs a negotiable instrument in his own name20. In case an agent signs a negotiable instrument without making it clear that he is signing it as an agent only, he may be held personally liable on the same. He would be personally liable as the maker of the note, even though he may be described in the body of the note as the agent.

4. An agent with special interest or with a beneficial interest, e.g. a factor or auctioneer, can sue and be sued personally (Subramanya v. Narayana, 24 Mad. 130). 5. When an agent is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in matters which do not fall within his authority (Section 238). 6. Where trade usage or custom makes an agent personally liable. 7. Where the agency is one coupled with interest.

AGENCY COUPLED WITH INTEREST Agency is said to be coupled with interest when authority is given for the purpose of securing some benefit to the agent. In other words, where the agent has himself an interest in the subject-matter of the agency, the agency is one coupled with interest. Examples:(1) Where an agent is appointed to sell properties of the principal and to pay himself out of such sale proceeds the debt due to the agent. (2) A consigns 100 bags of rice to B, who has made advances to him on such rice, and desires B to sell the rice, and to repay himself out of the price, the amount of his own advance. The authority of B is an authority coupled with interest. (3) A sells the goodwill and book debts of his business to B, and appoints B as his agent to collect the debt. It should be noted that, it is not the ordinary type of interest which every agent has such as the remuneration, but it is that special type of interest which an agent possesses that makes it an agency coupled with interest. Wills C.J., in Smart vs Sanders 5 C.B. 917.

Personal Liability of an Agent 1. Where acting for a foreign principal. 2. Where acting for a principal whose name he does not disclose. 3. Where the principal cannot be sued, e.g., minor. 4. Where he acts without authority or exceeds authority. 5. Where he agrees to be personally bound. 6. Where he signs a negotiable instrument in his own name. 7. Where he is an agent with a special interest, e.g., factor or auctioneer. 8. Where he is guilty of fraud or misrepresentation in matters outside his authority. 9. Where trade or custom makes him personally liable. 10. Where agency is one coupled with interest. observed, the authority must have been given by an agreement entered into for sufficient consideration for the purpose of conferring some benefit on the donee of that authority. In the case of an agency coupled with interest, the agency cannot, unless there is an express contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest (Section 202). It becomes irrevocable to the extent of such interest and does not terminate even by the insanity or death of the principal.

TERMINATION OF AGENCY (Section 201) mentions the circumstances under which an agency terminates or comes to an end. It reads, An agency is terminated by the principal revoking his authority; or by the agent renouncing the business of the agency being completed; or by either the principal or agent dying or becoming of unsound mind, or by the principal being adjudicated an insolvent under the provisions of any Act for the time

in force for the relief of insolvent debtors. Thus, the authority of an agent comes to an end in the following cases: 1. By revocation by the principal. The principal may, by notice, revoke the authority of the agent at any time. Where the agent is appointed to do a single act, agency may be revoked any time before the commencement of the act. In case of a continuous agency, notice of revocation is essential to the agent as well as to the third parties who have acted on the agency with the knowledge of the principal. Where an agency is for a fixed period of time, and the contract of agency is revoked without sufficient cause, compensation must be paid to the agent (Section 205). The Agency is irrevocable in the following two cases: (i) Where the authority of the agent is one coupled with interest; i.e., the agent has an interest in the subject-matter of the contract21. Example:A gives authority to B to sell As land, and to pay himself out of the proceeds, the debts due to him from A. A cannot revoke this authority, nor can it be terminated by his insanity or death. (ii) The principal cannot revoke the authority given to his agent after the authority has been partly exercised so far as regards such acts and obligations already done in the agency (Section 204). Examples:1. A authorises B to buy 1,000 bales of cotton on account of A, and to pay for it out of As money remaining in Bs hands. B buys 1,000 bales of cotton in his own name, so ,as to make himself personally liable for the price. A cannot revoke Bs authority to pay for the cotton. 2. A authorises B to buy 1,000 bags of rice on account of A and to pay for it out of As money remaining in Bs hands. B buys 1,000 bags of rice in As name, so as not to make himself personally liable for the price. A can revoke Bs authority to pay for the rice.

2. On the expiry of fixed period of time. When the agency is for a fixed period of time, it comes to an end on the expiry of that time. 3. On the performance of the specific purpose. Where an agent is appointed to do a particular act, it terminates when that act is done or when the performance becomes impossible. 4. Insanity or death of the principal or agent. Death or insanity of the principal or the agent, terminates the agency. But, an agent, in such a case, should take all reasonable steps for the preservation of property, on behalf of the principal or the legal representatives of the principal, as the case may be (Section 209). 5. An agency shall also terminate in case subject-matter is either destroyed or rendered unlawful. 6. Insolvency of the principal. Insolvency of the principal, not of the agent, erminates the agency. 7. By renunciation of agency by the agent. If principal can cause termination of agency by revocation, an agent may renounce his agency by giving a sufficient notice to that effect. Where, however, an agency is for a fixed period and the agency is renounced without a sufficient cause, the principal must be compensated (Section 205).

WHEN TERMINATION OF AGENCY TAKES EFFECT 1. The termination of the authority of an agent does not, so far as regard the agent, take effect before it becomes known to him (Section 208). 2. As regards third parties, they can continue to deal with the agent till they come to know of the termination of the authority (Section 208). Examples:(1) A directs B to sell goods for him, and agrees to give B five per cent (5%) commission on the price fetched against the goods. A, afterwards, by letter revokes

Bs authority. B, after the letter is sent, but before he receives it, sells the goods for Rs. 100. The sale is binding on A, and B is entitled to five rupees as his commission. (2) A, at Chennai, by letter directs B to sell for him some cotton lying in a warehouse in Mumbai, and afterwards, by letter, revokes his authority to sell, and directs B to send the cotton to Chennai. B, after receiving the second letter, enters into a contract with C, who knows of the first letter, but not of the second. For the sale of him of the cotton C pays B the money, with which B absconds. Cs payment is good as against A. (3) A directs B, his agent, to pay certain money to C. A dies and D takes out probate to his will. B, after As death, but before hearing of it, pays the money to C. The payment is good as against D, the executor. 3. The termination of the authority of an agent causes the termination of authorityof all sub-agents appointed by him.

Termination of Agency 1. By revocation by the principal. 2. On the expiry of fixed period of time. 3. On the performance of the specific purpose. 4. In the event of insanity or death of the principal or agent. 5. On destruction of the subject-matter of agency. 6. In the event of the insolvency of the principal. 7. By renunciation of agency by the agent.

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL Where an agent, though discloses the fact that he is an agent working for some principal, conceals the name of the principal, such a principal is called an undisclosed principal. The liability of an undisclosed principal is similar to that of a disclosed principal unless there is a trade custom making the agent liable. However, the undisclosed principal must exist and must also be the principal at the time the contract is made. He cannot be brought into existence as a principal after the contract has been concluded. CONCEALED PRINCIPAL Where an agent not only conceals the name of the principal but the very fact that there is a principal, the principal is called as a concealed principal. In such a case, the third parties are not aware of the existence of the principal and regard the agent as the person contracting for himself. The third parties, thus, must look to the agent for payment or performance, and the agent may sue or be sued on the contract. Legal position in this regard is as follows: 1. If the principal wishes to intervene, he may require the performance of the contract, but the other party has, as against him (principal), the same rights as he would have had as against the agent if the agent had been principal (Section 231 para I). 2. Para II of Section 231 provides that in such a case, if the principal discloses himself before the contract is completed the other contracting party may refuse to fulfil the contract, if he can show that if he had known who was the principal in the contract, or if he had known that the agent was not the principal, he would not have entered into the contract. 3. The principal, if he requires performance of the contract, can only obtain such performance subject to the rights and obligations subsisting between the agent and the other party to the contract.

Example:A who owes Rs. 500 to B, sells 1,000 rupees worth of rice to B. A is acting as agent for C in the transaction, but B has no knowledge nor reasonable ground of suspicion that such is the case. C cannot compel B to take the rice without allowing him to set off As debt. 4. In contracts with a concealed principal, the agent is, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, personally liable to the third party. The third party may hold either the agent or principal or both liable (Section 233). Example:A enters into a contract with B to sell him 100 bales of cotton and afterwards discovers that B was acting as agent for C. A may sue either B or C, or both, for the price of the cotton.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Heuston, R. F. V., and Buckley, R. A., Salmond & Heuston on the Law of Torts, 12thEdition (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1992). 2. Osborn, P. G., A Concise Law Dictionary, 4th Edition (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1954).

Books Referred Mercantile Laws by N.D.Kapoor Mercantile Laws by P.P.S.Gogna

Websites Referred www.vakilno1.com