Business Contract Case Study: Bostock V. Jardine '
Introduction
For a contract to appear in the situation of the question, one of agent employed to do any act for another while one of principal which is represented in business transactions…..
Issues
Ian had been assigned to be in charge of an art gallery that owned by Sarah while she is away on a business trip. Ian understood that he cannot buy any item for the gallery without approval and cannot offer a discount on any displayed items without Sarah’s permission. While Sarah is away, Ian sold an artwork at 20% discount that Sarah could not get it sold for 9 years. He then brought a copy of a famous art piece to the store and sold it to Jake at RM5000 by persuading him that it was an original piece, which Jake discovered later. Sarah also …show more content…
It is the duty of agent that she ought to arrangement the business genuinely. If she conducts the business dishonestly then he is not entitled to receive the reward of her services. Ian must obey Sarah instruction. It is the essential duty of an agent that she ought to follow up on the legitimate instruction of the principal. Ian should not cheated Sarah. She must followed Sarah instruction to sold artwork. To obey the principal’s instructions- Section 164, Contracts Act 1950 . In Bostock v Jardine, the agent was liable when he bought more than he was directed to buy.
Ian must showing accounts and return of undue profit. It is the duty of an agent that she ought to keep up the records appropriately and submit it to the principal on her request. If an agent has earned undue benefit from the business, she ought to return it to the essential.
Ian need to communicated with Sarah (principal). It is the duty of the agent that she ought to give all the informations about the business to the principal. She ought to look for instructions from her principal. She ought not continue keep anything insider facts and secrets from her principal. A bribe was defined by Slade J in Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis as that the makes to that person knowing that the person is acting as the agent of the person with whom he is
For a contract to appear in the situation of the question, one of agent employed to do any act for another while one of principal which is represented in business transactions…..
Issues
Ian had been assigned to be in charge of an art gallery that owned by Sarah while she is away on a business trip. Ian understood that he cannot buy any item for the gallery without approval and cannot offer a discount on any displayed items without Sarah’s permission. While Sarah is away, Ian sold an artwork at 20% discount that Sarah could not get it sold for 9 years. He then brought a copy of a famous art piece to the store and sold it to Jake at RM5000 by persuading him that it was an original piece, which Jake discovered later. Sarah also …show more content…
It is the duty of agent that she ought to arrangement the business genuinely. If she conducts the business dishonestly then he is not entitled to receive the reward of her services. Ian must obey Sarah instruction. It is the essential duty of an agent that she ought to follow up on the legitimate instruction of the principal. Ian should not cheated Sarah. She must followed Sarah instruction to sold artwork. To obey the principal’s instructions- Section 164, Contracts Act 1950 . In Bostock v Jardine, the agent was liable when he bought more than he was directed to buy.
Ian must showing accounts and return of undue profit. It is the duty of an agent that she ought to keep up the records appropriately and submit it to the principal on her request. If an agent has earned undue benefit from the business, she ought to return it to the essential.
Ian need to communicated with Sarah (principal). It is the duty of the agent that she ought to give all the informations about the business to the principal. She ought to look for instructions from her principal. She ought not continue keep anything insider facts and secrets from her principal. A bribe was defined by Slade J in Industries and General Mortgage Co Ltd v Lewis as that the makes to that person knowing that the person is acting as the agent of the person with whom he is