On the other hand, the client must sufficiently inform third parties of the revocation of the representative`s power of attorney in order to avoid an apparent power of attorney. Otherwise, the actions of a representative after the revocation of his power of attorney may bind a client vis-à-vis third parties who have reasonable confidence in the continuation of the Agency. This can often occur in transactions initiated by the agent before the revocation of the power of attorney, and the rule is applied in favor of people who continue to deal with insurance agents, buyers, and similar situations. Morton Marks & Sons, Inc. v. Hill-Chase Steel Co., 196 Va. 268 (Va. 1954). Apparent authority (also known as “deemed authority”) exists when the words or conduct of the principal would lead a reasonable person in the third party`s position to believe that the agent was authorized to act, even if the principal and the presumed representative had never spoken of such a relationship.
For example, if a person appoints a person to a position that has powers similar to those of an agency, those who are aware of the appointment may legitimately assume that there is an apparent authority to do the things normally assigned to someone who occupies such a position. If a client gives the impression that a representative is authorized but there is no actual power of attorney, third parties are protected as long as they have acted reasonably. This is sometimes referred to as the “estoppel mandate” or the “perseverance doctrine”, which prevents the contracting authority from refusing to grant the power of attorney when third parties have changed their position to their detriment on the basis of the statements made. [5] The client is no longer liable for a specific act after the third party becomes aware that it has rejected the representative`s authority to perform such an act. After the termination of an agency for a specific purpose and the notification of the revocation of the agency, the act of an agent does not usually bind the client. Often, a client is liable for the criminal acts of an agent in the course of the representative`s employment. However, it should be emphasized that, unless the principal orders or orders the act, a principal is not liable for acts or omissions committed by an agent while acting unfavourably towards the principal or outside the sphere of employment of the agent. “First, in order to express honesty and openness, commercial agents and principals must cooperate in the execution of their agreement.
Good faith conduct requires each party to take proactive steps to assist the other in fulfilling its agreement, not just refraining from obstructive conduct. However, whether a party acted in good faith cannot be determined on the basis of a moral or metaphysical conception of cooperation; That assessment must be based on an objective assessment of the genuine agency relationship. Consequently, the intensity of cooperation required varies according to the terms of the contract and the relevant commercial practices. If a person is injured by a van, the injured person can hold the trucker`s employer liable for the injuries under the Agency Act, even if the employer was not directly responsible. Indeed, the driver and employer are in a principal agent relationship where the driver, who in this case is the agent, has the legal authority to act on behalf of the employer (i.e., the principal). In addition, an agency may be dissolved by operation of law. As a general rule, the death or bankruptcy of the client is considered an immediate and absolute revocation of the agent`s power of attorney, unless the agency is associated with an interest. The rule is also the same if the agency is created with more than one client.
If the authority or authority is established jointly by two or more constituents and one of them dies, the Agency shall normally terminate unless it is associated with an interest. However, an agency may be made irrevocable by law notwithstanding the death of the client. The Parties may terminate the Agency by mutual agreement. An agency relationship requires the mutual consent of the parties and both parties have the right to withdraw their consent. According to the terms of the agency agreement, some agencies cannot be terminated by the fact of one of the parties or by the occurrence of an event. The mutual renunciation of an organization is a question of fact, since it is the will of both parties. The court will determine this intent based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction, as well as the conduct of the parties. Preszler v. Dudley, 153 Cal.
App. 2d 120, 124 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 1957). With the exception of the implied agency discussed below, the creation of an agency requires the consent of both the agent and the principal. The contracting authority must intend the trustee to act on its behalf, the trustee must intend to accept the authorisation and act accordingly. The will of the agent and the client must be expressly stated in the contract or derived from the conduct of the parties Usually, a representative can terminate the agency relationship by giving express notice to the client, either orally or in writing. Termination of any relationship with the Principal by an agent and termination by the agent may be treated as a waiver.
However, the mere breach of instructions by the Contractor does not constitute a waiver and may expose the Contractor to liability for breach of its obligations. However, unless the Agency`s boundaries are known or can be readily established, the Client may be bound by unauthorized acts of an Agent as a result of which a third party has suffered damage, if reasonable confidence in the Agent`s authority is demonstrated.