Mat

Much appreciated!

Thanks

Ger

On 2/2/15, Harrington Matthew P. <matthew.p.harrington@umontreal.ca> wrote:
> Ger
>
> Here is a relatively recent Ontario AC case discussing the general rule.
>
> John Ziner Lumber Ltd. v. Kotov, 2000 CanLII 16894 (ON CA)
> http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2000/2000canlii16894/2000canlii16894.html
>
> An early American Supreme Court case is
>
> Ford v. Williams, 62 U.S. 287 (U.S. 1858)
>
> An old, but pretty good law journal article is
>
> Arnold Rochvarg, Ratification and Undisclosed Principals, 1989 McGill L.J.
>
> http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/4930762-Rochvarg.pdf
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Matthew P. Harrington
> Professeur titulaire
>
> Faculté de droit
> Université de Montréal
> 3101 chemin de la Tour
> Montréal, Québec H3T 1J7
> 514.343.6105
> www.droit.umontreal.ca
> ---------------------------------------
>
>
> From: Gerard Sadlier<mailto:gerard.sadlier@gmail.com>
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 8:06 AM
> To: obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I'd be really grateful for any authorities on the question whether a
> principle is vicariously liable for acts of their agent in the course
> of or incidental to the agent's agency, in circumstances where the
> principle is undisclosed to third parties.
>
> Where, in other words, T (the third party) deals with A (the agent)
> not realizing that A acts for P (the principle).
>
> Many thanks
>
> Ger
>