Category: AGENCY

ISSUE:

Whether payment of premium by the insured to the general agent of the LIC can be regarded as payment to the insurer so as to constitute a discharge of liability of the insured?

RULE:

Section 187 of the ICA explain the meaning of the express and implied agency. Section188 makes it mandatory for the agent to have the authority to do an act that he does. Section 237 says that an agent can do an act on behalf of the principal even if he does not have the authority if the principal makes the third party believe that the said person had the authority as an agent to do that act, principal can be held liable for the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not an estate agent is liable to disclose information to Principal , that comes to his knowledge from his dealings with another seller/principal?

RULE:

In the case of estate agents, it is their business to act for numerous principals, several of whom might be competing and whose interests would conflict. Despite this conflict of interest, estate agents must be free to act for several competing principals, otherwise they will be unable to perform their function. Therefore, a term was to be implied in the contract with such an agent that he was entitled to act for other principal’s selling similar properties and to keep confidential information obtained from each principal.

ISSUE:

If the employee of the bank, Shukla misappropriated the money, till what extent will the bank responsible for act of its employee?

RULE:

The employer is not liable for the act of the servant if the cause of the loss or damage arose without his actual fault or privity or without the fault or neglect of his agents or servants in the course. of their employment;

the damage complained of must be shown to have been caused by any wrongful act of his servant or agent done within the scope or course of the servant or agent's employment even if the wrongful Act amounted to a crime

a master is liable for his servants fraud perpetrated in the course of master's business whether the fraud was for the master's benefit or not, if it was committed by the servant in the course of his employment. There is no difference in the liability of the master for wrongs whether for fraud or any other wrong committed by a servant in the course of his employment and it is a question of fact in each case whether it was committed in the course of the employment.