Watteau V Fenwick 1893

[sunset_corniche]

Could you explain the case Watteau v Fenwick 1893 which is related to the topic Implied Authority?

Thank you.

[vishwas1980]

Hi Sunset

Actually I haven't gone through this topic. But I have managed to collate this info .Hope this is of some help

This is discussed under Usual Authority.
Usual Authority looks at those acts that are not within express or implied actual authority, but are within the class of acts usually associated with agents of that character. It is the authority to do whatever an agent of the type in question or employee in a particular post would usually have the authority to do.
In Watteau v Fenwick, the court held that it was within the usual authority of the manager of a public house to buy cigars for resale to customers. The manager had been forbidden by the brewery from doing so, but since the seller was unaware of the restriction then usual authority applied.


Regards
Vishwas:)

[Acid]

Hi Sunset ,

Basically the law the case tried to establish is ... If others percieve you to have authority while infact you have not and they have made a deal with you then that deal would be valid !

You should see carefully the differences b/w Actual , Apparent and other type of authorities. They are easy to understand.

Regards

Acid

[Rachel]

Hi Sunset,

Acid has rightly explained. Please go through the details of this case, given below:
Watteau v Fenwick 1893
Fred owned a hotel. He sold it to the defendants, who then hired him as the hotel manager. Fred continued to hold the licence for the hotel, which was placed over the door. The claimants in the case supplied cigars to Fred on credit. The claimants believed Fred was the hotel owner. They didn’t know that the defendants (the actual owners), whom they had never heard of, had forbidden Fred to buy cigars on credit. The claimants learnt of this and sued for the outstanding amount.

Court’s decision: The court declared that a manager of such an establishment had authority to purchase cigars. If limitations where imposed on this authority, then these limitations needed to be communicated to third parties to make the limitations effective.

Hope this helps!

Rachel

[danyun]

Maybe I can give my advice. The implied authority of the agent is the authority that he or she should be expected to own from the point of view of a reasonable man as the agent is acting in that position which indicates that the agent should have the authority alongwith that position even if it is not expressly stated in the agency relationship. Under some circumstances the implied authority would be implied by customery or by the court. Thus the contract made by the agent with the implied authority on behalf of the principal would bind both of the third party and the principal.
what is similar to this situation is the apparent authority although the definition is different from that of the implied authority. Apparent authority arises where the principal made the representation to the third party to make him or her reasonably and genuinely believe that the agent does have that authority regardless of whether the agent has or not that authority, and this kind of authority is called the apparent authority. Contracts made on this basis by the agent with the third party will bind the principal. An example is that in the context of company a director enters into a contract with a third party who believes that the director does have that authority.....