{"title":"Some wear and tear on Armagas v Mundogas: the tension between having and wanting in the law of agency","authors":"Peter G. Watts","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2714271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the decades following Armagas v. Mundogas, a leading case on some basic principles of agency law, the case has become surrounded by at least as many lukewarm lieutenants as stout defenders. There is in fact an understandable tension between not subjecting persons to transactions to which they have demonstrably not agreed and protecting the expectations of those who not unreasonably have trusted an intermediary accurately to report their principal’s willingness to transact. Protecting expectations, including “the security of contracting”, is generally more fashionable amongst lawyers now than it once was. This article addresses two of the holdings in Armagas (the need for a holding out by a (non-consenting) principal as to an agent’s authority before liability arises in either contract or the tort of negligent misstatement) and two of the dicta (being put on inquiry as to a lack of authority, and the unreliability of a course of dealing between the parties), and reviews the pronouncements of United Kingdom and England and Wales judges on each of them. The article seeks to reinforce Armagas on the first three, but not the last.","PeriodicalId":266956,"journal":{"name":"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2714271","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In the decades following Armagas v. Mundogas, a leading case on some basic principles of agency law, the case has become surrounded by at least as many lukewarm lieutenants as stout defenders. There is in fact an understandable tension between not subjecting persons to transactions to which they have demonstrably not agreed and protecting the expectations of those who not unreasonably have trusted an intermediary accurately to report their principal’s willingness to transact. Protecting expectations, including “the security of contracting”, is generally more fashionable amongst lawyers now than it once was. This article addresses two of the holdings in Armagas (the need for a holding out by a (non-consenting) principal as to an agent’s authority before liability arises in either contract or the tort of negligent misstatement) and two of the dicta (being put on inquiry as to a lack of authority, and the unreliability of a course of dealing between the parties), and reviews the pronouncements of United Kingdom and England and Wales judges on each of them. The article seeks to reinforce Armagas on the first three, but not the last.
阿玛加斯诉蒙多加斯案(Armagas v. Mundogas)是关于代理法一些基本原则的重要案例。在该案之后的几十年里,围绕此案的不冷不热的副手和坚定的捍卫者至少一样多。事实上,在不让人们接受他们显然没有同意的交易与保护那些并非不合理地信任中介准确报告其委托人交易意愿的人的期望之间,存在着一种可以理解的紧张关系。保护期望,包括“合同的安全”,在律师中比以前更流行。本文地址的两个持有Armagas(需要坚持(non-consenting)主要代理的权威在合同或侵权责任出现之前的疏忽错报)和两个的格言(被放在调查缺乏权威性,和不可靠的交易双方的课程),和评论英国和英格兰和威尔士法官的声明他们每个人。本文试图在前三个方面加强Armagas,而不是最后一个。