Friday, March 23, 2012

Watteau v. Fenwick case brief

Watteau v. Fenwick (Q.B. 1892) (p.25)

Facts: Case where a pub manager held himself out to be independent, but was
actually bound by a principal and was not authorized to enter into contracts.
Inherent authority might be necessary in cases where the agent pretends not to have a
principal but actually does. However, the agent does not have the power to enter into
an agreement with the third party.
-The third party would want to get at the principal,
even though the case would be neither actual nor apparent authority.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Washington v. Shupe Case Brief: Analyzing Self-Defense and Evidentiary Rulings in a Criminal Trial

Case Brief: Washington v. Shupe Citation: Washington v. Shupe , 289 P.3d 741 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). Court: Court of Appeals of Washington, D...