Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:15:23 +0100

From: Steve Hedley

Subject: Grand Trunk Railway

As to consideration, "I will carry you from A to B so long as, in return, you agree to respect my conditions of carriage" seems perfectly good. As you know, consideration does not have to take the form of a money payment.

As to agency, I am puzzled that you concede the existence of agency but don't think it extends to making a contract. Given the commercial purpose of the agency, would it not have been very surprising if the agent had not made a contract?

Steve Hedley
Faculty of Law, University College Cork

----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jason Neyers
Sent: 27 September 2006 13:29
To: Hedley, Steve
Subject: Re: RE: ODG: Grand Trunk Railway

But there could not be a contract, on the authority of Dunlop (decided 6 days later by the same Haldane), since the plaintiff did not provide consideration, the only payment being made by the owner of the horse for carriage of the horse (not the Dr. Parker who negotiated the ticket and who was a proper agent for the owner). As one case note noted (in Can Bar Rev.), it is better to view Dr. Parker as an agent in the sense that he has permission to make representations and accept information on the plaintiff's behalf. In that sense, it is an agency similar to that of the bailment on terms cases. What would be the correct word for such a person? Is agent the right one? A representation agent? A limited mandate agent?

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>