Watteau v Fenwick
An undisclosed principal was held liable for purchases made by his agent within the usual authority of an agent in that position, even though he had forbidden them.
Facts
Mr Humble managed a public house that was owned by Fenwick, a firm of brewers. The licence and the name over the door were in Mr Humble's name, so he appeared to be the owner. The brewers had forbidden him to buy cigars and some other goods on credit, which they would supply themselves. Mr Humble bought cigars on credit from Mr Watteau, who thought that Mr Humble was the owner and had never heard of the brewers. When Mr Watteau discovered that the brewers were the real owners, he sued them for the price.
Legal principle
The court held that the brewers were liable. Wills J said that the principal is liable for all the acts of the agent which are within the authority usually confided to an agent of that character, notwithstanding limitations put upon that authority as between the principal and the agent. Buying cigars was within the usual authority of a manager of a public house. The decision has been criticised, because Mr Watteau did not know of the principal, so he could not have relied on any appearance of authority, and it was doubted in later cases.
Related cases on agency
- Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA (The Ocean Frost) [1986] AC 717
- Bolton Partners v Lambert (1889) 41 Ch D 295
- Collen v Wright (1857) 8 E & B 647
- De Bussche v Alt (1878) 8 Ch D 286
- First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 194
- Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480
- Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549
- Hippisley v Knee Brothers [1905] 1 KB 1
Studying commercial law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
