Buama v Oppong - Cases PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases...

Description

Buama v Oppong The defendant was the owner/driver of a commercial vehicle. The plaintiff boarded the defendant's vehicle as a fare-paying passenger at a lorry station in Accra run by the Ghana Private Road Transport Union (G.P.R.T.U.) on a trip to Ho. After he had been obliged by the bookman who loaded the vehicle to pay freight for a travelling bag he was carrying the bookman took the bag from him and put it in the boot of the vehicle. However when the vehicle reached Ho, the plaintiff's bag was not on it. After he had failed to recover the cost of the bag and the items in it from the defendant, the plaintiff brought an action against him. def contended that the bookman was not his agent and therefore he was not vicariously liable for the loss. The court however found on the evidence that (i) the bookman gave the money he had received from the plaintiff as freight to the defendant; and (ii) even though the bookmen were employees of the G.P.R.T.U. they were the ones who dealt directly with the passengers by collecting the fares and freight from them, loading them onto the vehicles and then paying the moneys collected to the drivers. Held: (a) if a person represented or permitted it to be represented that another had authority to act on his behalf, he would be bound in the same way as he would be if that other had in fact authority to act. In the instant case, since the bookman charged for the luggage in the presence of the defendant and gave the fee charged to him, it was clear that the defendant had given ostensible or apparent authority to the bookman to act on his behalf. Accordingly, there was an agent and principal relationship between the bookman and the driver. (b) In law the usage of the trade or business in which an agent was employed would, in the absence of express direction, frequently determine the liability of the principal. The usage however had to be reasonable in the consideration of the court. In the instant case, judicial notice would be taken of the fact that the usual practice which prevailed at the lorry parks managed and controlled by the G.P.R.T.U. was that it was the bookmen who took the luggage and preferred what fee a passenger paid and then found a convenient place on the vehicle to place the luggage for which he had collected the fee before accounting directly to the vehicle owner/driver for a commission. Accordingly, any vehicle owner/driver who took his vehicle to a G.P.R.T.U. controlled station was bound by that practice and usage. Since the bookman was the agent of the defendant and he acted within the scope of his authority, the defendant was liable to the plaintiff for the loss of his bag....