Yonge v Toynbee
An agent who continues to act after his authority has ended because of his principal's mental incapacity is liable for breach of warranty of authority, even if he did not know of the incapacity.
Facts
A firm of solicitors was instructed to defend a libel action on behalf of their client. Without the solicitors' knowledge, the client became mentally incapable, which ended their authority to act for him. They continued to defend the action, and took various steps in it. When the claimant discovered the client's incapacity, he had the defence struck out and claimed the costs he had wasted from the solicitors.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the solicitors were personally liable for the wasted costs, for breach of warranty of authority. Buckley LJ said that the liability of a person who professes to act as an agent does not depend on any wrong or omission of his, but on an implied contract that he has the authority which he professes to have. The solicitors had warranted that they had authority to act for the client, which was untrue after he became incapable, so they were liable, even though they had not known of the incapacity.
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.
