TERMINATION OF AGENCY

39
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY A project on Termination of anency SUBMITTED BY:- SUPERVISED BY:- NEERAJ KUMAR Dr. s. c. Roy ROLL NUMBER - 757 1 | Page

description

project work for B.A L.L.B student and other any institution

Transcript of TERMINATION OF AGENCY

Page 1: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

A project on

Termination of anency

SUBMITTED BY:- SUPERVISED BY:-

NEERAJ KUMAR Dr. s. c. Roy

ROLL NUMBER - 757

1 | P a g e

Page 2: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

CONTENTS

Page.no.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 03

INTRODUCTION 04 - 07

REASERCH METHODOLOGY 06

OBJECTIVE 07

SOURCE OF DATA 07

CHAPTERS

1–FORMATION OF AGENCY 08 - 09

2–CONCEPT OF TERMINATION OF AGENCY 10 - 12

3-DURATION OF TERMINATION OF AGENCY 12 - 17

4-CASE STUDY 18 - 23

5-CONCLUSION 24 - 25

BIBLIOGRAPHY 25

2 | P a g e

Page 3: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

It’s a fact that any research work prepared, compiled or formulated

in isolation is inexplicable to an extent. This research work,

although prepared by me, is a culmination of efforts of a lot of

people.

Firstly, I would like to thank our Law of Contract teacher, Dr. S. C.

Roy for giving such a topic for the research which assisted me in

acquiring some knowledge related to TERMINATIO OF AGENCY. I

would like to thank her for her valuable suggestions towards the

making of this project.

Thereafter, I would also like to express my gratitude towards our

seniors who played a vital role in the compilation of this research

work .

I cannot ignore the contributions made by my classmates and

friends towards the completion of this project work .And I would

also like to express my gratitude towards the library staff of my

college which assisted me in acquiring the sources necessary for the

compilation of my project.

Last, but not the least , I would like to thank the Almighty for

obvious reasons .

---

NEERAJ KUMAR

3 | P a g e

Page 4: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

Introduction:-

Agency is a special type of contract. The concept of agency was developed as one man cannot

possibly do every transaction himself. Hence, he should have opportunity or facility to transact

business through others like an agent. The principles of contract of agency are – (a) Excepting

matters of a personal nature, what a person can do himself, he can also do it through agent (e.g. a

person cannot marry through an agent, as it is a matter of personal nature) (b) A person acting

through an agent is acting himself, i.e. act of agent is act of Principal. - - Since agency is a

contract, all usual requirements of a valid contract are applicable to agency contract also, except

to the extent excluded in the Act. One important distinction is that as per section 185, no

consideration is necessary to create an agency. This branch of law separates and regulates the

relationships between:

Agents and Principals;

Agents and the Third Parties with whom they deal on their Principals' behalf; and

Principals and the Third Parties when the Agents purport to deal on their behalf.

The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per

alium, facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is

a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in

Criminal law or Tort for the acts or omissions of another1.

―In the legal phraseology, every person who acts for another is not an agent. A domestic servant

renders to his master a personal service; a person may till another’s field or tend his flocks in his

shop or factory or may performed upon his roads; one may act for another in aiding in the

performance of his legal or contractual obligations of third persons….In none of these capacities

he is an agent and he is not acting for another in dealings with third persons. It is only when he

acts as a representative of the other in business negotiation, between that other and third persons,

that he is an agent2…

1 Shivraj Reddy & Bros v S. Raghu Raj Reddy, AIR 2002 NOC 120 (AP).

2 AIR 1955 SC Mad 648

4 | P a g e

Page 5: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

Hallmark of agency :- “Agent” is defined in section 182 of the Indian Contract Act in the

following ward: Section-182-“Agent and “principal” defined- An agent is a person

employed to do any act another, or to represent another in dealings with third person. The

person for whom such act is done, or who is so represented, is called the “principal”. “The

essence of the matter is that the principal authorized the agent to represent or act for him

in bringing the principal into contractual relation with a third person.”

CONSIDERATION NOT NECESSARY –: No consideration is necessary to create an agency. [section 185 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 ]. Thus, payment of agency commission is not essential to hold appointment of Agent as valid.

A PERSON CAN BECOME A PARTNER IN A FIRM, WHICH IS THE POSITION OF AN

AGENT, WITHOUT MAKING ANY CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION. 1

THE CONCEPT OF AGENCY-: The concept of “agency” has been thus explained by RAMSWAMI J of the Madras High Court in Krishna v Ganapathi;

In the legal phraseology, every person who acts for another is not an agent. A domestic servant

renders to his master a personal service; a person may till another’s field or tend his flocks or

work in his shop or mine; one may for another in aiding in the performance of his legal or

contractual obligations of third persons…. In none of these capacities he is an agent and he is not

acting for another in dealings with third persons.

The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and

legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a

business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only

act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so

long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency. A third party may rely in good faith

on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. It is not always

cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as having the authority to act for

another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting

without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable3

Given the sudden and severe contraction in the Irish economy and in particular in the disposable

budgets of both the business and private community, it is no wonder that sales/commercial

3 r.k. bangia, law of contracts, allahabad law agency : faridabad, 2010,289

5 | P a g e

Page 6: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

agents are being informed with increasing regularity by the companies who have engaged them

that the relationship is being terminated or somehow indefinitely suspended.  Whilst, from an

economic point of view (i.e cost cutting measures by the company in light of the obvious

downturn in orders etc) the proposed termination may be based on a very genuine need to stem

losses, it can have unforeseen financial implications for the company.  Also, if you are the agent

in question the termination may not be as financially disastrous in the short term as you might

think and you may be entitled to significant compensation when the commercial agency is

terminated.  In this regard the agent should understand that “termination” is not just limited to

the normal understanding of termination. For the purposes of the relevant legislation “terminate”

also includes the non-renewal of an existing agency at the end of its stated term and also where

the agent (being a person acting as a sole trader) actually dies (this is explained in section 4

below)4.

Research methodology:-

For the purpose of research the researcher has relied on primary sources to look for information

relating to the laws and statutes relating to TERMINATION OF AGENCY and secondary

sources for the position and advancement of it’s in India. The researcher has done this keeping

in mind the frequently asked questions rising out of this topic. The researcher has aimed at

doctrinal method of research and will try to critically analyze and provide an un-biased account

of the role of termination of agency in India.

Objective:-

4 ibid

6 | P a g e

Page 7: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

The researcher prime objective is to validate the significance of the ‘TERMINATION OF

AGENCY’. It aims to critically provide a vivid account of the case law, statutes and legislations

which provide a platform in Termination of agency. The researcher is going to limit its scope to

termination of agency its background and present advancement and scenario in India. It will also

aim to critically analyze the trend advancement and position of the Termination of agency.

SOURCE OF DATA:-

BOOK

MAGAZINES

WEBSITES

NEWSPAPER

ARTICLES

Chapter-1: formation of agency

  Section 2: Formation of the Agency Relationship: Agency relationships normally are

consensual; in other words, they come about by contrary consent and agreement. A principle

must have contractual capacity. A person who cannot legally enter into contracts directly should

7 | P a g e

Page 8: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

not be allowed to do so indirectly through an agent. Any person can be an agent, however,

regardless of whether he or she has the capacity to contract. Because an agent derives the

authority to enter into contracts from the principal and because a contract made by an agent is

legally viewed as a contract of the principal, it is immaterial whether the agent personally has the

legal capacity to make that contract. An agency relationship can be created for any legal purpose.

An agency relationship created for a purpose that is illegal or contrary to public policy is

unenforceable.

Agency by Agreement: Most agency relationships are based on an express or implied

agreement that the agent will act for the principal and that the principal agrees to have the agent

so act. An agency agreement can take the form or an express written contract. Many express

agency relationships are created by oral agreement and are not based on a written contract. An

agency agreement can also be implied by conduct5.

Agency by Ratification: On occasion, a person who is in fact not an agent may make a contract

on behalf or another (a principal). If the principal approves or affirms that contract by word or by

action, an agency relationship is created by ratification. Ratification involves a question of intent,

and intent can be expressed by either words or conduct.

Agency by Estoppel: When a principal causes a third person to believe that another person is the

principals agent, and the third person acts to his or her detriment in a reasonable reliance on that

belief, the principal is estopped to deny the agency relationship. In such a situation, the principals

actions have created the appearance of an agency that does not in fact exist. The third person

must prove that he or she reasonably believed that an agency relationship existed, however.

Agency by Operation of Law: The courts may find an agency relationship in the absence of a

formal agreement in other situations as well. This may occur in family relationships. Agency by

operation of law may also occur in emergency situations, when the agents failure to act outside

the scope of her or his authority would cause the principal substantial loss. If the agent is unable

to contract the principal, the courts will often grant this emergency power.

Section 3: Duties of Agents and Principals: Once the principal-agent relationship has been

created, both parties have duties that govern their conduct. The principal-agent relationship is

fiduciary one of trust.

5 avtar singh, law of contracts, eastern law house : lucknow, 2010,409

8 | P a g e

Page 9: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

Agents Duties to the Principal: Generally, the agent owes the principal five duties

performance, notification, loyalty, obedience, and accounting.

Performance. An implied condition in every contract is the agents agreement to use reasonable

diligence and skill in performing the work. When the agent fails to perform his or her duties,

liability for breach of contract may result. The degree of skill or care required of an agent is

usually that expected of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. Not all agency

relationships are based on contract. In some situations, an agent acts gratuitously that is, without

payment. A gratuitous agent cannot be liable for breach of contract, as there is not contract; he or

she is subject only to tort liability. Once a gratuitous agent has begun duty as an agent, he is then

responsible to perform the duty as a regular agent would have performed.

Notification. An agent is required to notify the principal of all matters that come to her or his

attention concerning the subject matter of the agency. This is the duty of notification, or the duty

to inform. Generally, the law assumes that the principal is aware of any information acquired by

the agent that is relevant to the agency regardless of whether the agent actually passes on this

information to the principal6.

Loyalty. Is one of the most fundamental duties in a fiduciary relationship. Basically stated, the

agent has the duty to act solely for the benefit of his or her principal and not in the interest of the

agent or a third party. The duty of loyalty also means that any information or knowledge

acquired through the agency relationships is confidential. In short, the agents loyalty must be

undivided. The agents actions must be strictly for the benefit of the principal and must not result

in any secret profit for the agent.

Chapter-2: concept of termination of agency

An agent's authority can be terminated at any time. If the trust between the agent and principal

has broken down, it is not reasonable to allow the principal to remain at risk in any transactions

that the agent might conclude during a period of notice.

6 Ibid

9 | P a g e

Page 10: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

As per sections 201 to 210 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, an agency may come to an end in a

variety of ways:

1.Withdrawal by the agent – however, the principal cannot revoke an agency coupled with

interest to the prejudice of such interest. An agency is coupled with interest when the agent

himself has an interest in the subject-matter of the agency, e.g., where the goods are consigned

by an upcountry constituent to a commission agent for sale, with poor to recoup himself from the

sale proceeds, the advances made by him to the principal against the security of the goods; in

such a case, the principal cannot revoke the agent’s authority till the goods are actually sold, nor

is the agency terminated by death or insanity (illustrations to section 201)7;

1. By the agent renouncing the business of agency;

2. By the business of agency being completed;

3. By the principal being adjudicated insolvent (section 201).

The principal also cannot revoke the agent’s authority after it has been partly exercised, so as to

bind the principal (section 204), though he can always do so, before such authority has been so

exercised (section 203).

Further, as per section 205, if the agency is for a fixed period, the principal cannot terminate the

agency before the time expired, except for sufficient cause. If he does, he is liable to compensate

the agent for the loss caused to him thereby. The same rules apply where the agent, renounces an

agency for a fixed period. Notice in this connection that want of skill, continuous disobedience

of lawful orders, and rude or insulting behavior has been held to be sufficient cause for dismissal

of an agent. Further, reasonable notice has to be given by one party to the other; otherwise,

damage resulting from want of such notice, will have to be paid (section 206). As per section

207, the revocation or renunciation of an agency may be made expressly or impliedly by

conduct. The termination does not take effect as regards the agent, till it becomes known to him

and as regards third party, till the termination is known to them (section 208).

When an agent’s authority is terminated, it operates as a termination of subagent also (section

210).

7 http://profj.us/26w/law1/chp31notes.htm

10 | P a g e

Page 11: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

This has become a more difficult area as states are not consistent on the nature of a partnership.

Some states opt for the partnership as no more than an aggregate of the natural persons who have

joined the firm. Others treat the partnership as a business entity and, like a corporation, vest the

partnership with a separate legal personality. Hence, for example, in English law, a partner is the

agent of the other partners whereas, in Scots law where there is a separate personality, a partner

is the agent of the partnership. This form of agency is inherent in the status of a partner and does

not arise out of a contract of agency with a principal. The English Partnership Act 18908 provides

that a partner who acts within the scope of his actual authority (express or implied) will bind the

partnership when he does anything in the ordinary course of carrying on partnership business.

Even if that implied authority has been revoked or limited, the partner will have apparent

authority unless the third party knows that the authority has been compromised. Hence, if the

partnership wishes to limit any partner's authority, it must give express notice of the limitation to

the world. However, there would be little substantive difference if English law was

amended. partners will bind the partnership rather than their fellow partners individually. For

these purposes, the knowledge of the partner acting will be imputed to the other partners or the

firm if a separate personality9. The other partners or the firm are the principal and third parties

are entitled to assume that the principal has been informed of all relevant information. This

causes problems when one partner acts fraudulently or negligently and causes loss to clients of

the firm. In most states, a distinction is drawn between knowledge of the firm's general business

activities and the confidential affairs as they affect one client. Thus, there is no imputation if the

partner is acting against the interests of the firm as a fraud. There is more likely to be liability

in tort if the partnership benefited by receiving fee income for the work negligently performed,

even if only as an aspect of the standard provisions of vicarious liability. Whether the injured

party wishes to sue the partnership or the individual partners is usually a matter for the plaintiff

since, in most jurisdictions, their liability is joint and several.

8 http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/agency-formation.html9 sir frederick pollock & sir dinshaw fardunji mulla, pollock and mulla the indian contract and specific relief

acts, lexis nexis butterworths : nagpur, 2010,523.  

11 | P a g e

Page 12: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

Chapter-3: duration and termination of agency

The relation of principal and agent can only be terminated by the act or agreement of the parties

to the agency or by operation of law.  “An agency, when shown to have existed, will be

presumed to have continued, in the absence of anything to show its termination, unless such a

length of time has elapsed as destroys the presumption10”.

The agent’s duty to act on behalf of the principal comes to an end on the termination of agency.  

The timeframe for termination of an agency can be stipulated by a particular statute or

instrument.  In such a case, if the instrument specifies in plain and unambiguous terms that an

agency will terminate without action on the part of the principal or agent upon the expiration of

the time specified in the instrument, the agency will in fact, terminate.  If, after the expiration of

the time so stipulated in the contract, the parties continue their relationship as principal and

agent, a rebuttable presumption is raised that their relations are governed by the original contract

and that the contract is renewed for a similar period.  For instance, if the parties entered into a

contract for one year and continued to act under the contractual terms after one year, the court

will presume that the parties in fact intended to keep the contract alive for another year11.

On the other hand, if the parties did not fix any appropriate time for the termination of contract,

the contract is deemed to be terminated after a reasonable time.  “What constitutes a reasonable

time during which the authority continues is determined by the nature of the act specifically

authorized, the formality of the authorization, the likelihood of changes in the purposes of the

principal, and other factors”.  Moreover, the burden of proving the termination or revocation of

an agency rests on the party asserting it.

“Parol evidence cannot be admitted to add another term to an agreement even if the writing

contains nothing relating to the particular provision to which the parol evidence is directed”[v]. 

Thus, courts will not admit parol evidence while determining the duration of an agency contract

where the written contract is viewed as integrated, or unambiguous, or both.  An agency

continuing for a reasonable time can be terminated by one party only after giving sufficient

notice to the other party.

10 ibid11 http://www.docstoc.com/docs/69123345/Contract-Law-Remedies-Essay

12 | P a g e

Page 13: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

An agency created for a specific purpose as well as an agency created by a power of attorney is

terminated once the particular purpose for which it was created was accomplished[vi].  After the

termination of the agency, the agent is free of any fiduciary duty to the principal arising from the

agency relationship.  According to the Uniform Durable Power of Attorney Act § 5, an affidavit

executed by the attorney in fact under a power of attorney, stating that he/ she did not have at the

time of exercise of the power actual knowledge of the termination of the power by revocation or

of the principal’s death, disability, or incapacity is conclusive proof of the non revocation of the

power at that time12.

The parties can terminate the agency by mutual agreement.  An agency relationship requires the

mutual assent of the parties and both the parties have power to withdraw their assent.   An agency

may not be terminated by the act of one of the parties and should be done mutually.   The mutual

abandonment of an agency is a question of fact, since it is a matter of intention of both the

parties.  The court will ascertain such intent from the surrounding facts and circumstances of the

transaction as well as implied from the conduct of the parties.

An agency contract may be cancelled on the basis of an express stipulation in the contract.   In

such a case, the parties will have a right of cancellation at the will of either party or upon the

happening of a contingency or the nonperformance of some expressed condition.  The principal

cannot cancel such an agreement at will so long as the agent fulfills his/her part of the

agreement.  However, the principal can cancel the agency contract for any justifiable cause13.

An agency may be revoked at the will of the principal when an agency is not coupled with an

interest, and no third party’s rights are involved.  The party terminating the agency must show

good cause.  Thus, when A enters into a contract whereby B is to provide A for a stated period of

time with goods or services, which both parties realize are for use in a particular enterprise

owned by A, in the absence of a specific clause so providing, A cannot escape his obligations

under that contract by voluntarily selling his interest in the enterprise before the expiration of the

expressed contract term. Therefore, if the right to cancel an agency contract is dependent upon

some contingency, the cancellation must be justified by establishing the happening of such

contingency.

12 j.beatson,ansonon,contracts,oxford :london, ed. 2010,789

13 http://www.studymode.com/subjects/termination-of-agency-page1.html

13 | P a g e

Page 14: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

An agency cannot be terminated at will during certain specific instances.  For example, in the

matter of distributorship or sales agency contracts of indefinite duration, an at-will termination is

not feasible.  In such a case, the distributor might have made substantial investment in

establishing or furthering the distributorship.  Hence, the agreement may be terminated only after

a reasonable time has lapsed and reasonable notice of termination is given.

An agency contract to be performed to the principal’s satisfaction can generally be canceled at

will by the principal.  Similarly, a power of attorney constituting a mere agency may be revoked

at any time, with or without cause.

A principal may unilaterally cancel an agency without incurring liability for breach of contract

under the following instances: misconduct or habitual intoxication of the agent which interferes

with his/her employment, the refusal of the agent to obey reasonable instructions or to permit the

principal to make a proper audit of his/her accounts, serious neglect or breach of duty by the

agent, dishonesty or untrustworthiness of the agent, the agent’s failure to pay an indebtedness

owing to the principal, disloyalty of the agent like using the agency to make secret profits.

Ordinarily, an agent may renounce the agency relationship by expressly notifying the principal,

either orally or in writing.  An agent’s cessation of all relations with the principal, and

abandonment by the agent may be treated as a renunciation.  However, mere violation of

instructions by the agent will not amount to renunciation14.

Although agency can be terminated at will, law stipulates that notice must be given to the party

affected by termination.  However, express notice to the agent that the agency has been revoked,

or to the principal that the agency is renounced, is not always necessary if the affected party

actually knows, or has reason to know the facts resulting in such revocation or renunciation.  The

principal shall provide sufficient notice to third parties as to the revocation of agent’s authority.  

Otherwise, the acts of an agent after his/ her authority has been revoked may bind a principal as

against third persons who rely upon the agency’s continued existence.  This may often happen to

transactions initiated by the agent before the revocation of authority, and the rule is applied in

14 avtar singh, law of contracts, eastern law house : lucknow, 2010,421

14 | P a g e

Page 15: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

favor of persons who have continued to deal with insurance agents, purchasing agents, and the

like.

There is no need to provide any formal written notice to third persons of the ending of an agency

relationship.  Actual notice of termination is sufficient in the case of third parties and such notice

may be shown by a written or oral communication from the principal or the agent, or it may be

inferred from the circumstances.  For instance, a third party is deemed to have actual notice if

he/she has knowledge of the fact that the principal has appointed another agent for the same

purpose15.

The character of the notice also differs with respect to third parties.  Thus, actual notice must be

brought home to former customers who have dealt with the agency more directly, while notice

by publication will be sufficient as to other persons.

In addition, an agency may be terminated by operation of law.  The death of the principal

operates as an immediate and absolute revocation of the agent’s authority, unless the agency is

one coupled with an interest.  The rule is the same even if the agency is created with more than

one principal.  Where the power or authority is created by two or more principals jointly and one

of them dies, the agency will be terminated unless it is coupled with an interest.   However, an

agency may be made irrevocable by statute, notwithstanding the death of the principal.

Regarding the termination of agency upon the death of the principal, two views are prevailing.  

According to one view, unless the agency is one coupled with an interest, it will terminate on the

death of the principal, notwithstanding the fact that the agent and third person are ignorant of the

fact.  Another view is that if the third person dealing with the agent acts in good faith and in

ignorance of the principal’s death, the revocation of the agency on the death of the principal

takes effect only from the time that the agent receives notice of such death.  In such a case, “the

principal’s estate may be bound where the act to be done is not required to be done in the name

of the principal.”

Similarly, death of the agent will revoke an agency not coupled with an interest and this is the

rule when there are two or more agents.  However, in the case where a sub agent is appointed by

the agent, the authority of a subagent is terminated by the death of the agent, unless the agent

15 ibid

15 | P a g e

Page 16: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

appointed the subagent at the principal’s request.  In that event, the subagent derives his/her

authority form the principal and not from the agent.

The loss of capacity of a party resulting from temporary or permanent mental incompetency may

result in the termination or suspension of the agency relationship.

Thus, the termination of the agent’s authority due to the loss of capacity of the principal may not

affect the rights of third persons if such third persons do not have notice of such fact.  Also, if the

agent’s authority is coupled with an interest, it is not suspended by the principal’s insanity16.

Similarly, bankruptcy of the principal is a valid reason for the termination of agency and the

agent is divested of any authority to deal with any assets or rights of property of which the

principal was divested by reason of the bankruptcy, irrespective of whether the agent receives

notice of the bankruptcy.  A power of attorney may be terminated by the bankruptcy of the

principal.  The mere insolvency of the principal will not automatically terminate agent’s

authority.  The determinant fact is whether the law has assumed control over the principal’s

property.  Likewise, the bankruptcy or insolvency of an agent terminates his or her authority to

conduct transactions on behalf of the principal.

A change in value of the subject matter or a change in business conditions may terminate or

suspend the agent’s authority if the agent should reasonably infer that the principal would not

consent if aware of such facts.  Similarly, a change in legal identity of, or merger by, the

principal is a valid ground for termination of an agency contract.

The loss or destruction of the subject matter of the agency or the termination of the principal’s

interest is yet another ground for terminating the agent’s authority.  The agent’s authority ceases

when the agent has notice of the fact.  However, destruction of subject matter will not always

result in termination of agency, especially when the subject matter can be replaced without

substantial detriment to either party17.

In addition, a change of law making the required act illegal may terminate an agency contract. If

the authority or power of an agent is coupled with an interest, it is not revocable by the act,

condition, death, or mental incapacity of the principal before the expiration of the interest, unless

16 http://www.studymode.com/essays/Termination-Of-Agency-934427.html

17 http://www.buzzle.com/articles/termination-letter-sample.html

16 | P a g e

Page 17: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

there is some agreement to the contrary.  A power is coupled with an interest where the agent

receives title to all or a part of the subject matter of the agency.  In order to support a claim of

power coupled with an interest, either legal title or equitable title is sufficient.  A power coupled

with an interest will survive to the personal representative of the agent upon the agent’s death.

Chapter-4: case study

Loon Karan Sethia Etc vs Ivan E. John & Ors. Etc on 20 October, 1976

17 | P a g e

Page 18: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

Messrs.John & Co. were in financial difficulties and, therefore, entered into a financial

agreement with Sethia & Co. a partnership firm of the plaintiff and Seth Sugan Chand. On 6th

July, 1948 Messrs. John & Co. obtained another financial accommodation from Sethia & Co.

Messrs. Tejkaran Sidhkaran had also given some advances to Messrs. John & Co. The liability to

the firm of Messrs. Tejkaran Sidhkaran was transferred to Sethia & Co.

Seth Loonkaran Serbia filed a suit against John & Co. and his partners (defendants first set) as

well as Messrs. John, Jain, Mehra & Co. and its partners. (defendants second set) for recovery of

Rs. 21,11,500/- with costs and future interest and for a declaration that the plaintiff had a prior

and floating charge on all the business assets of Messrs. John & Co. It was alleged by the

plaintiff that the defendants (second set) entered into partnership with the defendants (first set )

under the name and style of Messrs. John Jain, Mehra & Co and maliciously induced them to

commit breach of the agreement dated 6-7-1948 by forcibly turning out his representatives who

used to remain in charge of the stocks, stores. coal, waste, etc., of the mills and making them

enter into a financial agreement contrary to the terms of the agreement with his firm. The

plaintiff also alleged that accounts were again settled on 4-4-1949 and a sum of Rs. 47,23,738/-

was found due to him from the defend- ants18.

The defendants (first set) contended that there was no settlement of accounts; that the accounts

were tainted with fraud and obvious mistakes and that on a true and correct accounting a large

sum of money would be found due to them; that the plaintiff and said Sugan Chand obtained

various documents, agreements, vouchers, receipts etc., and that the same were of no legal value

as they were secured by the former by practising undue influence, fraud, coercion and

misrepresentation; that the plaintiff had illegally and contrary to the agreement dated 6-7-1948

debited them with huge amounts which were not really due to them; that the cotton supplied by

the plaintiff was of inferior quality and that the rates charged were exorbitant. It was also denied

that the plaintiff had floating or prior charge on any of their stocks, stores, etc; that the suit was

barred by the provisions Of section 69 of the Partnership Act and that the agreement dated 6-

71948 which was insufficiently stamped could not form the basis of the suit. The defendants.

(second set) also denied the claim of the plaintiff. The Trial Court held that the suit was

maintainable; that the firm of Messrs. Sethia & Co. was dissolved before the institution of the

18 1977 SCR (1) 853

18 | P a g e

Page 19: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

suit; that the suit being one for the recovery of the assets due to a. dissolved partnership firm

from a third party, was not barred by section 69 of the Partnership Act: that Seth Sugan Chand

was not a necessary party to the suit; that the agreement dated 6-7-1948 was duly stamped and

that no undue influence etc., was exercised by the plaintiff on the defendants; that there was no

ac- counting on 4-4-1949 as alleged by the plaintiff and that both the plaintiff and the defendants

(first set) committed a breach of the agreement dated 6-7-1948. The Trial Court also held that a

charge was created in favour of the plain- tiff in respect of the entire business assets and that the

defendants (second set) were liable to satisfy the plain- tiff's claim. The Trial Court decreed the

plaintiff's suit to the extent of Rs. 18,00,152 but rejected his claim for specific performance and

injunction. The Trial Court accord- ingly passed a preliminary decree against both the sets of

defendants directing them to deposit19.

the said amount in the court within the prescribed time and in default gave the plaintiff a right to

apply for a final decree for the sale of all the business assets, goods, stocks, stores, etc. The

decree also gave a right to the plaintiff to apply for a personal decree against the defend- ants for

the balance of his claim in case the net sale proceeds of the property of the firm were found

insufficient to discharge his claim.

The plaintiff filed an appeal in the High Court of Allahabad and the defendants also filed an

appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court. The High Court allowed both the appeals

partially holding that no fraud, undue influence, coercion or misrepresentation was practised by

the plaintiff; that the agreement dated 6-7-1948 was neither insufficiently stamped nor did it

require registration; that the deed of dissolution dated 22-7-1948 was prepared for the purpose of

the case but there was sufficient evidence on the record to indicate that said Sugan Chand had

withdrawn from the partnership carried on in the name of Serbia & Co. with effect from 30-6-

1948; that Seth Sugan Chand was not a necessary party to the suit; that the suit was not barred.

by section 69 of the Partnership Act; that the alterations in the deed dated 6-7-1948 were not

material alterations and did not render the agreement void; that the plaintiff had a floating charge

over the business assets of John & Co.; that it was defendants (first set) and not the plaintiff who

committed breach of the' agreement. The High Court, there- fore, passed a preliminary decree for

Rs. 11,33,668/- in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants (first set) but dismissed the

19 1977 SCR (1) 853

19 | P a g e

Page 20: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

suit with costs as against the de- fendants (second set). The High Court granted certificate under

Article 133 in both the appeals.

Dismissing the plaintiff's appeal and allowing the appeal of the defendants (first set) held: (1)

Section 69 of the Partnership Act is mandatory in character and its effect is to render a suit by a

plaintiff in respect of a right vested in him or acquired by him under a contract which he entered

into as a partner of an unregistered firm, whether existing or dissolved, void. [869 A]

(2) A partner of an erstwhile unregistered partnership firm cannot bring a suit to enforce a right

arising out of a contract failing within the ambit of section 69 of the Partnership Act. The suit out

of which the appeals arise was for enforcement of the agreement entered into by the plaintiff as

partner of Serbia & Co. It was never pleaded by the plaintiff not even in his replication that he

was suing to recover the outstanding of a dissolved firm. Thus the suit was clearly hit by section

69' and was not main- tainable. [869 B-C]

(3) A close scrutiny of the document and other evidence clearly negatives the plaintiff's claim

that the firm was dissolved with effect from 30th June 194820. [865 C]

(a) The agreement dated 6th July 1948 itself is signed by the plaintiff as a partner and the,

expression partner also appears in the body of the agreement. [865 D]

(b) The alleged deed of dissolution dated 22nd July 1948 between the plaintiff and Seth Sugan

Chand was prepared on a stamp paper printed in the Government Press in November, 1948. The

said Dissolution Deed was, therefore, clearly fabricated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff signed

various cheques in July, 1948 as the partner of Sethia & Co. [865 F-H; 866 A-C; 867 F]

(c) No service by post or advertisement in the newspaper about the dissolution was given either

by the plaintiff or by Seth Sugan Chand. [867 F]

(4) Seth Sugan Chand was a necessary party to the suit and in spite of the objections raised on

behalf of the defendants the plaintiff did not care to implead' Seth Sugan Chand. The suit was

bound to fail on that ground also. [869 D-E]

20 1977 SCR (1) 853

20 | P a g e

Page 21: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

(5) A material alteration in a document without the consent of a party to, it has the effect of

cancelling the deed. [870 A]

Volume 12 of Halsburys Laws of England (Fourth Edition) referred to.

Nathu Lal & Ors. v. Musammat Gomti & Ors. (A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 160) relied on.

In the present case there were many material alterations of the document. The material

alterations, therefore have the effect of cancelling the deed in question. [870 B-D] (6) The

plaintiff's suit was for a specific and ascer- tained sum of money on the basis of settled account.

The Courts below found concurrently that there was no settlement of account as alleged by the

plaintiff on 4th April 1949. After that it was not open to the courts below to make out a new case

for the plaintiff which he never pleaded21. The courts be.low could have either dismissed the suit

or passed a preliminary decree for accounts directing that the books of account be examined item

by item and an opportunity allowed to defendants to impeach and falsify the accounts. [871 A-

C].

Chathu kutti Nair Vs Kundan Appa and ors.

1. The petitioner brought a suit to recover rents from defendants Nos. 1 to 3 who had attorned

to him under a marupat. The plaintiff is the karnavan of the tarwad. The 6th defendant is a

junior member to whom the plaintiff had given a power-of-attorney to collect the rents 22. The

plaintiff says that he had revoked this power-of-attorney on 22nd September 1927 and that the

payment of rent made by the defendants in December 1927 to 5th fefendant was consequently

invalid. Two pleas were raised in defence that the defendant had mortgaged the property to

D23. W. No. 1 with instructions to pay the rent to the 5th defendant and that D. W. No. 1 was

not aware of the cancellation. The second is that the cancellation itself was illegal. I have not

considered it necessary to call on the respondents to answer the first point because on the

second I think the decision is correct.

21 1977 SCR (1) 85322 136 Ind Cas 77623 136 Ind Cas 776

21 | P a g e

Page 22: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

2. The petitioner contends that the cancellation is valid, that if it was made before the time

fixed in the power-of attorney for its termination the only remedy is one by way of damages

under Section 205 of the Indian Contract Act and that the 5th defendant had no interest in the

property as described in Section 202. The question therefore is whether the 5th defendant had

any such interest in the property as is contemplated under Section 202. The 5th defendant is a

member of the tarwad and entitled to be maintained out of the tarwad property. The rents are

part of the tarwad property and he in my opinion has a clear interest in the rents before and

after the grant to him of the power-of attorney. Under Section 202, Pollock and Mulla state

with regard to 'authority coupled with interest' that in England the word 'coupled' implies

beyond the mere fact of the agent having an interest in the subject-matter, some specific

connection between the authority and the interest. They quote from Smart v. Sandars (1848) 5

C.B.895 at p. 917 : 17 L.J.C.P.258 12 Jur. 751 : 75 R. R., 849 : 136 E. R. 1132, as follows.

We think this doctrine---i. e., the rule of the present section---applies only to cases where the

authority is given for the purpose of being : a security, or as part of the security, not to cases

where the authority is given independently, and the interest of the donee of the authority arises

afterwards, and incidentally only, as, for instance, in the present case goods are consigned to a

factor for sale. This confers an implied authority to sell. Afterwards the factor makes advances.

This is not an authority coupled with an interest but an independent authority, and an interest

subsequently arising.

3. It appears to me from this that in English Law if the interest was previous to the authority, it

would be such an interest as is contemplated in a. 202. Under the heading 'Indian authorities' at

page 675 the cases quoted are ones where the agent had no interest antecedent to the authority.

4. I must hold in the present case that the 5th defendant (agent) had an interest in the property

namely the rents due to the tarwad and that the cancellation of his authority was illegal, the

conditions of such cancellation not having been complied with as pointed out by the lower

Court.

22 | P a g e

Page 23: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

5-conclusion

Technology is an indispensable instrument of globalization. Its globalizing potential , however

its influenced shaped by laws and regulations. Globalization as we understand it today is a

conscious process. People perceive the world as a single or compressed space. Laws and

regulations enables the technology to achieve its globalizing potential and allow human activity

to stretch across borders. Laws and regulations also help to create powerful non-state actors such

as international organizations and corporations by permitting such actors to come into being and

to acquire sources of power.

23 | P a g e

Page 24: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a Contractual or Quasi-Contractual,

or non-contractual set of relationships

when an agent is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the Principal) to create a legal

relationship with a Third Party. Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a

principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly, authorizes the agent to

work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of

the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship.

In political science and economics, the principal–agent problem or agency dilemma treats the

difficulties that arise under conditions of incomplete and asymmetric information when a

principal hires an agent, such as the problem of potential moral hazard and conflict of interest,

inasmuch as the principal is—presumably—hiring the agent to pursue its, the principal's,

interests.

Various mechanisms may be used to try to align the interests of the agent in solidarity with those

of the principal, such as piece rates/commissions, profit sharing, efficiency wages, performance

measurement (including financial statements), the agent posting a bond, or fear of firing.

The principal–agent problem is found in most employer/ employee relationships, for example,

when stakeholders hire top executives of corporations. Numerous studies in political science

have noted the problems inherent in the delegation of legislative authority to bureaucratic

agencies. As another example, the implementation of legislation (such as laws and executive

directives) is open to bureaucratic interpretation, which creates opportunities and incentives for

the bureaucrat-as-agent to deviate from the intentions or preferences of the legislators. Variance

in the intensity of legislative oversight also serves to increase principal–agent problems in

implementing legislative preferences.

Bibliography BOOKS-

1. J.BEATSON, ANSON ON CONTRACTS,OXFORD :LONDON, ED. 2010, 2010

24 | P a g e

Page 25: TERMINATION OF AGENCY

2. Sir Frederick Pollock & Sir Dinshaw Fardunji Mulla, Pollock and Mulla The Indian

Contract and Specific Relief Acts, LEXIS NEXIS BUTTERWORTHS : NAGPUR, 2010  

3. R.K. BANGIA, LAW OF CONTRACTS, ALLAHABAD LAW AGENCY : FARIDABAD, 2010

4. AVTAR SINGH, LAW OF CONTRACTS, EASTERN LAW HOUSE : LUCKNOW, 2010

WEBSITES:-

1. http://agency.uslegal.com/duration-and-termination-of-agency/

2. http://i2biz.blogspot.com/2009/11/termination-of-agency.html

3. http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/LA313_Topic%2010.html

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency

5. http://www.eaa.org.hk/eaa/Home/Publications/AgencyLaw/3Formationofagency/tabid/403/ language/en-US/Default.aspx

6. http://profj.us/26w/law1/chp31notes.htm 7.

25 | P a g e