Great Northern Railway vs PDF

Preview

Summary

case brief...

Description

UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES SCHOOL OF LAW B.BA.LLB (HONS.), CORPORATE LAW BATCH - I SEMESTER - II ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-18 SESSION: JAN-MAY CASE COMMENT Under the Supervision of: PARUL MA’AM NAME: HARSHITA SHARMA SAP ID: 500060552 ROLL NUMBER: 30

Great Northern Railway vs. Swafflied, 1874 LR Ex. 132 INTRODUCTION Agency of necessity means a person may becomes the agent of another without being appointed as such under certain circumstances. It is created when a person is entrusted with another’s property and it becomes necessary to do something to preserve that property although he has no express authority to do so. This case extended the doctrine of agency of necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is automatically authorised to act

to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a principal. According to S142 Contract Act 1950, an agency may arise by necessity or in an emergency. FACTS: Mr Swaffield sent his horse by railway to a station at Sandy. The horse arrived late at night, and the railway company lodged the horse overnight for their own account at a livery stable. Mr Swaffield failed to collect it on the following morning. The only basis on which he was prepared to give any instructions about the fate of his horse was that the railway company assumed all responsibility for storing and delivering it to him from the time of its arrival at Sandy. After four months of this. They unilaterally delivered the horse to defendant‘s farm and then sued him for the livery charges to date.

BACKGROUND According to section142 Contract Act 1950, an agency may arise by necessity or in an emergency. Agency by necessity is an agency created by an emergency from a circumstance making it important or legitimate for the specialist to act without accepting the endorse or approval of the essential, so as to anticipate mischief to the primary. It emerges when an obligation is forced on a man to follow up for the benefit of another separated from contract and to avoid hopeless damage. A person who saves the property of another or give assistance to others for the same may be termed as agent of necessity. This occurs when one party, the agent, is faced with an emergency which poses an imminent threat to the interests or the property of another party, the Principal, and there is deficient time or means for the specialist to look for the Principal's headings or expert in regards to the issue. The teaching begins from two systematically unique kinds of cases. In a few, the activities of the specialist may qua lifies him for go to the degree of influencing the Principal's lawful relations with outsiders and in others, only qualifies him for a repayment or repayment against the liabilities or costs that he/she may have caused while acting in the Principal's advantage This can be said as the agent activity is to forestall misfortune to the primary with deference of merchandise, for example, perishable products. Be that as it may, organization of need does not emerge when products are simply sold due to burden. On account of Great Northern Railway Co. versus Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Exch 132, the offended party railroad organization had transported a steed to a station for the benefit of litigant. At the point when the steed landed, there was no one to gather it. Along these lines, the offended party sent it to a stable. Various months after the fact, the offended party paid the stabling charges and after that straight to recoup what it had paid from the respondent. For this situation, the court was held that the offended party's case succeeded despite the fact that he is associated with the expansion of teaching of office of need to incorporate bearers of products via arrive. There was an organization of need on the grounds that the offended party was found to have had no real option except to orchestrate the best possible care of the steed. In the event that there is no direness and afterward merchandise are sold in light of the fact that they are burden to the specialist, at that point organization of need does not emerge. The specialist who offers the merchandise might be obligated in tort for transformation in light of the fact that those products are not has a place with the operator. For instance, in the event of Sachs v. Miklos

offer of furniture done by operator without criticalness occurred before it is sent to the goal or an auto being sold by specialist on the off chance that Munro v. Willmott and Co. under a condition which has no earnest thing happened. This decision extended the doctrine of agency of necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is automatically authorised to act to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a principal. HELD: . The court decided that GNRC had acted reasonably in putting the horse in the stable and that Swaffield was liable for the charges which they had paid.

Analysis 1. The judgement passed by the court is justified according to the doctrine of agency of necessity as the horse was sent by rail and when the horse arrived to the specified place there was no individual to collect it as according to the doctrine of agency of necessity the great northern railway was required to take care of the horse and bear the expenses related to it. GNR was protecting the property in order to protect the interest of the other party or protecting defendant’s property from eminent threat without the authority of the principal as there was no certain instructions given by swaffield to the great northern railway’s has to take action accordingly in order to protect the horse

2. The great northern railways v. swaffield case extended the doctrine of agency of necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is automatically authorised to act to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a principal. In the cases before like great western railway co it was held that if the agent does anything not authorised or he does not provide information to the principal , the agent would be liable for the same .In this case the legal issue was whether the emergency circumstances give GNRC the authority to act on behalf of Swaffield and engage the services of the stable? The court decided that GNRC had acted reasonably in putting the horse in the stable and that Swaffield was liable for the charges which they had paid. As far as compensation was concerned there is no decided case in English law in which an ordinary carrier of goods by land has been held entitled to recover this sort of charge against the consignee or consignor of goods. The precise point does not seem to have been subsequently decided, but several cases have since arisen in which the nature and scope of the duty of the master, as agent of the merchant, have been examined and defined.’ Then, after citing the cases, the judgment proceeds ‘It results from them, that not merely is a power given, but a duty is cast on the master, in many cases of accident and emergency, to act for the safety of the cargo in such manner as may be best under the circumstances in which it may be placed; and that, as a correlative right, he is

entitled to charge its owner with the expenses properly incurred in so doing.’ That seems to me to be a sound rule of law. That the duty is imposed upon the carrier. This decision extended the doctrine of agency of necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is automatically authorised to act to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a principal.

Conclusion This choice expanded the convention of agency of need to cases concerning the carriage of merchandise via arrive. Beforehand it had been restricted to instances of carriage of products via ocean. It affirms that in instances of mischance and crisis, where it is difficult to get the central's guidelines, a specialist is consequently approved to act to make an agreement with an outsider in the interest of a primary....