'Report of Contract of Agency\r'

'Topic: legal philosophy of agency Summary of Facts: Company pencil lead ride employed tom as the manager for trade and sales department. Being an agent for star topology sauceboat, gobbler frequently concluded contracts with a number of suppliers for getting certain parts to manufacture boats. savorless coast was angiotensin converting enzyme of the suppliers. tom re subscribe from lead Boat in July 2012 upon being advanceed a better position in Star Ferry. However, he acquired 4,000 parts from cool piloting in August and manager of Smooth soaring did not notice that in the contract Tom indicated his signature as â€Å"manager, Star Ferry” and opinion they were visual modalitying with Star Boat as usual.When Smooth sailplaning later notified Star Boat to derive payment, Star Boat wanted to uphold the contract. legal Issues: First, Star Boat wants to ratify the contract, we must cut that whether there is any reasonable contract formed. at that place are six divisions to create a validated contract including intention to create legal relation, an offer and acceptance, consideration, privity of contract, capacity of contract and legality of contract. The first element †intention to create legal relation is not fulfilled. As Smooth sail intended to pass around with Star Boat further not Star Ferry.However, the contract now is traffic with Star Ferry. Smooth coast has no intention to deal with Star Ferry. As there is no intention, no valid contract is formed. Second, there is a slanted skid in this contract. Unilateral mistake involves only one party mistaken. To be operative, it must be cognise to the other party. Normally involve fraud on the part of the non-mistaken party. In the above case, Tom was dealing with Smooth glide before July. However, in August, Tom did not tell the truth to Smooth Sailing that he is the agent of Star Ferry but not Star Boat now.Therefore, Smooth Sailing judgment that he was dealing with Star Boat as usual. In the following paragraph, we list ii relevant cases which are similar to the present case. Cundy v. Lindsay (1876) HL, L & Co, a linen manufacturer, received an post for a large number of linen handkerchiefs from Blenkarn, who signed his name in such a port that it looked like ‘Blenkiron & Co’, a long-familiar respectable firm. L & Co dispatched the goods on credit to Blenkarn, who resold 250 dozen to Cundy. Blenkarn did not pay for the goods. L & Co sued Cundy to recover the handkerchiefs.It was held that the contract among L & Co and Blenkarn was void for coloured mistake. L & Co intended to deal with Blenkiron & Co, not Blenkarn. Cundy was liable to return the handkerchiefs to L & Co because no right of monomania had passed to him. Lewis v. Ain truth (1971) Lewis sold his gondola car to a man who claimed to be Richard Greene, a popular star. The man paid by cheque, providing a film studio pass as a proo f of his identity. He sold the car to Avery. The cheque had been taken from a stolen cheque admit and was later dishonoured. Lewis sued Avery to recover his car.It was held that this contract cannot be voided as the plaintiff cannot maneuver the importance of identity. The mistaken feeling to the credibility of act is not sufficient. Comparison: comparing the legal issue between Cundy v. Lindsay (1876) and our case, both cases commence the unilateral mistake. Cundy v. Lindsay can be voided because the identity was full of life for them to form a contract. For the second case Lewis v. Avery (1971) equal with our case, both are also have the unilateral mistake. But the case Lewis v. Avery cannot be voided as it cannot show the importance of the identity.In our case, Smooth Sailing was dealing with Star Boat in the past and it shows that the identity is very important. Conclusion: In our case, Smooth Sailing thought it was dealing with Star Boat as usual and the identity is very important as it affects the credibility. In fact, Smooth Sailing always deals with Star Boats. We deem the case law, the contract should be voided because Smooth Sailing mistakes the identity and the identity is vital to the contract. Moreover, Smooth Sailing has no intention to deal with Star Ferry. Therefore, no valid contract exists and Star Boat cannot ratify the contract.\r\n'