In the interesting case Andrew refers to and the hypotheticals he
posits, the key question seemed to be whether there was proper
performance i.e. did the counter-party provide (through a delegate or
otherwise) that which they had promised. So in the solicitor's case,
they had not provided the service promised because the employee was
unqualified and that was in breach of contract. The same point would
arise in the removers example he gives, I think. These are objections
based on a failure to perform properly, rather than an inability to
delegate. Surely, one can only object to delegation where either (i)
one has expressly provided that the work is to be done by a particular
person or class of persons (say solicitors or engineers or senior
counsel of 10 years' standing) or to a particular standard or (ii)
some such restriction is implied because of the nature of the contract
or services in question.

Kind regards

Ger

On 11/17/22, Robert Stevens <robert.stevens@law.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I don’t think agency can be a complete red herring.
>
> Contracts for the provision of goods and services aren’t (at least
> ordinarily) bets about whether someone or other will provide the goods or
> services in the future. Rather they’re agreements that one party will
> provide those goods and services.
>
> If I employ a builder to repair my bridge, I don’t necessarily expect him to
> do the work personally. If the builder is a corporation it will do so
> through its employees. Or it may be permissible to sub-contract the work to
> somebody to do all or some of it on the builder’s behalf.
>
> But if a stranger subsequently comes along and mistakenly repairs the
> bridge, thinking it was theirs, I don’t think the builder has performed and
> is thereby entitled to be paid. His obligation to repair the bridge may have
> been discharged, but here through frustration (the work no longer needs to
> be done) rather than performance.
>
> It is only if the work is done by someone authorised to do it on his behalf
> (or who purports to do it on his behalf whose actions are then ratified)
> that performance is thereby made.
>
> Performance, as the word implies, requiring some doing either by the
> promisor or somebody on his behalf.
> Rob
>
> From: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca>
> Sent: 17 November 2022 18:45
> To: Krish <krishneel@gmail.com>; Stephane.Serafin
> <Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca>
> Cc: a.m.tettenborn <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>; obligations
> <obligations@uwo.ca>
> Subject: RE: ODG: Vicarious Performance in Contract Law
>
> I post on behalf of Steve Hedley:
>
>
>
> In principle it must be a matter of interpretation. For most commercial
> goods and services, the natural interpretation will surely be that A is
> paying for the goods/services to be provided, and who provides them is
> beside the point. But there would be some cases where the personality
> matters; for example, it would surely be implicit in most (?all) employment
> contracts that the employee should do the work, not merely that the work
> should be done. There are of course borderline cases, e.g. Boulton v Jones
> (1857). ‘Agency’ seems to me to be a red herring in this context.
>
>
> Steve Hedley
>
> 9thlevel.ie<http://9thlevel.ie/>
>
> private-law-theory.org<http://private-law-theory.org/>
>
> ssrn.com/author=32978<http://ssrn.com/author=32978>
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> [esig-law]
> Jason Neyers
> Professor of Law
> Faculty of Law
> Western University
> Law Building Rm 26
> e. jneyers@uwo.ca<mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca>
> t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
>
> From: Krish <krishneel@gmail.com<mailto:krishneel@gmail.com>>
> Sent: November 17, 2022 1:29 PM
> To: Stephane.Serafin
> <Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca<mailto:Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca>>
> Cc: a.m.tettenborn
> <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk<mailto:a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>>; Jason W
> Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca<mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca>>; obligations
> <obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>>
> Subject: Re: ODG: Vicarious Performance in Contract Law
>
> You don't often get email from
> krishneel@gmail.com<mailto:krishneel@gmail.com>. Learn why this is
> important<https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification>
> I agree with Stéphane, and think it comes down to what exactly is promised.
> Is it the result that has been promised, or is it the act/attempt, or both?
> If it is only the result that is promised, I can't see any problem in
> principle with subcontracting the work out to someone else.
>
> Krish
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 10:24, Stéphane Sérafin
> <Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca<mailto:Stephane.Serafin@uottawa.ca>> wrote:
> Absent a duty requiring personal service in the contract I don’t really see
> what the problem with delegated performance would be. The promisor is bound
> to deliver the book, and if the book is not delivered then the promisor is
> liable for breach. But if the promisor does deliver the book to the
> promisee, even through an intermediary, then the book has been delivered.
>
> Not to go full civilian here but the Civil Code of Québec has an article
> that expressly deals with this issue – art. 1555 – and I see no reason to
> think that the common law position should be much different.
>
> From: Andrew Tettenborn
> <a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk<mailto:a.m.tettenborn@swansea.ac.uk>>
> Sent: November 17, 2022 1:14 PM
> To: Jason W Neyers <jneyers@uwo.ca<mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca>>; obligations
> <obligations@uwo.ca<mailto:obligations@uwo.ca>>
> Subject: Re: ODG: Vicarious Performance in Contract Law
>
> Attention : courriel externe | external email
>
> There certainly are some cases where subcontracting has deprived a claimant
> of the right to the price. A nice one is the solicitors' case of Pearless de
> Rougemont & Co v Pilbrow [1999] 3 All E.R. 355, where a law firm delegated a
> job in breach of contract to an unqualified employee: the court was clear
> that however well the latter actually did the job the firm hadn't rendered
> contractual performance and couldn't claim their fee. -Andrew
>
>
> On 17/11/2022 17:14, Jason W Neyers wrote:
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> Suppose that A wants to ship something (a book) from Toronto to X in another
> location. A contracts with B Ltd. to do the shipping. The book arrives and X
> takes possession. It turns out that as a matter of fact B Ltd. did not do
> the shipping (or all of the shipping) but instead that other contractors
> did. Can A sue for breach? Can A refuse to pay the contract price if it is
> demanded by B Ltd? Why is the answer to these questions generally no? Is it
> just a question of contract interpretation or is there some legal
> recognition that B Ltd actually performed the contract through the “agency”
> of the other contractors, who performed on B Ltd’s behalf?
>
> If anyone has any views on this or knows of any good discussions in caselaw,
> article or textbooks, I would be delighted to be pointed in the right
> direction.
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> [esig-law]
> Jason Neyers
> Professor of Law
> Faculty of Law
> Western University
> Law Building Rm 26
> e. jneyers@uwo.ca<mailto:jneyers@uwo.ca>
> t. 519.661.2111 (x88435)
>
>
>
>
> You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations
> group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in this
> conversation, reply all to this message.
>
> View group
> files<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Foutlook.office365.com%2Fowa%2Fobligations%40uwo.ca%2Fgroupsubscription.ashx%3Fsource%3DEscalatedMessage%26action%3Dfiles%26GuestId%3D9e9c7ebc-27b3-4113-bf0c-2e56b76ff0d2&data=05%7C01%7CA.M.Tettenborn%40Swansea.ac.uk%7Ccadd6aa7ec5c45d36eb208dac8bff43b%7Cbbcab52e9fbe43d6a2f39f66c43df268%7C0%7C0%7C638043024735298308%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Lt%2BoOdiQuyMAn5ySt5IJkhlN2A8n7I179CR4iOBc3OY%3D&reserved=0>
> | Leave
> group<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Foutlook.office365.com%2Fowa%2Fobligations%40uwo.ca%2Fgroupsubscription.ashx%3Fsource%3DEscalatedMessage%26action%3Dleave%26GuestId%3D9e9c7ebc-27b3-4113-bf0c-2e56b76ff0d2&data=05%7C01%7CA.M.Tettenborn%40Swansea.ac.uk%7Ccadd6aa7ec5c45d36eb208dac8bff43b%7Cbbcab52e9fbe43d6a2f39f66c43df268%7C0%7C0%7C638043024735454528%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=nmM%2FOYKSBJX1DL8kze7tTpOO2Xn3GEXk88FV4ol2mPI%3D&reserved=0>
> | Learn more about Microsoft 365
> Groups<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fo365g&data=05%7C01%7CA.M.Tettenborn%40Swansea.ac.uk%7Ccadd6aa7ec5c45d36eb208dac8bff43b%7Cbbcab52e9fbe43d6a2f39f66c43df268%7C0%7C0%7C638043024735454528%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=O1J%2Bo0XeC%2FELo7qnrCESqToORt4M18NcewA10tTIZ8k%3D&reserved=0>
>
> --
> br>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andrew Tettenborn
> Professor of Commercial Law, Swansea University
>
> Institute for International Shipping and Trade Law
> School of Law, University of Swansea
> Richard Price Building
> Singleton Park
> SWANSEA SA2 8PP
> Phone 01792-602724 / (int) +44-1792-602724
> Fax 01792-295855 / (int) +44-1792-295855
> Andrew Tettenborn
> Athro yn y Gyfraith Fasnachol, Prifysgol Abertawe
>
> Sefydliad y Gyfraith Llongau a Masnach Ryngwladol
> Ysgol y Gyfraith, Prifysgol Abertawe
> Adeilad Richard Price
> Parc Singleton
> ABERTAWE SA2 8PP
> Ffôn 01792-602724 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-602724
> Ffacs 01792-295855 / (rhyngwladol) +44-1792-295855
>
>
>
>
>
> See us on Twitter: @swansea_dst
> Read the IISTL Blog: iistl.wordpress.com
> My publications can be found here and here and here
> Member of the Heterodox Academy and member and adviser of the Free Speech
> Union<http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> Disclaimer: This email (including any attachments) is for the use of the
> intended recipient only and may contain confidential information and/or
> copyright material. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately and delete this email and all copies from your system.
> Any unauthorized use, disclosure, reproduction, copying, distribution, or
> other form of unauthorized dissemination of the contents is expressly
> prohibited.<http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
> <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
>
> -- <http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
> Krish Maharaj, BCOM, LLB, LLM, PhD<http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
> www.linkedin.com/in/krish-maharaj<http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
> Member of the British Columbia and Alberta
> Bars<http://www.swansea.ac.uk/law/istl/>
>
>
>
> You're receiving this message because you're a member of the obligations
> group from The University of Western Ontario. To take part in this
> conversation, reply all to this message.
>
> View group
> files<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/obligations@uwo.ca/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=files&GuestId=65155688-4ee1-4158-a23c-8f7fe8c4d423>
> | Leave
> group<https://outlook.office365.com/owa/obligations@uwo.ca/groupsubscription.ashx?source=EscalatedMessage&action=leave&GuestId=65155688-4ee1-4158-a23c-8f7fe8c4d423>
> | Learn more about Microsoft 365 Groups<https://aka.ms/o365g>
>
>
>