Estoppel Agent Case Study

Section 142 states “An agent has an authority, in an emergency, to take any actions to protect the principal from loss as any person of ordinary prudence will do, for himself, in the same circumstances.”

The agency may exist by the consent of both parties, which are the agent and the principal. In some cases, the necessity agent will exist, in an emergency, where by a person is entrusted by force to protect other’s property, although he has not been appointed by the principal. However, it is necessary for the agent to protect the property as on principal behalf, even he has no express authority to do so.

For example, in Great Northern Railway Co. vs. Swaffield,1874, cases, Mr. Swaffield sent his horse by a railway to a station at Sandy. The

In Section 190 states that “When an agent, without power, committed acts or conduct obligations to third parties, on behalf of the principal, the principal is bound by the acts or obligations if he is with words or behavior, encourage third party believes that the actions and the bonds are within the jurisdiction of the agency”. This situation makes the third party loss while the agent is not a principal’s agent. Therefore, the principal is stopped (estoppel) from denying the existence of his agent. Besides that, agency by estoppel may not arise if there is only involve actions of one agent.

For example, if A tells B in the presence of X that he is X’s agent and X does not deny this statement. X cannot later deny that A is his agent if B sells good to A after believing him to be A’s agent and later sue B for the price.

In the case of Cheng Keng Hong vs. Government of the Federation of the Malaya, Raja Azlan Shah J held that “The law with regard to acceptance of a tender is perfectly clear. The unconditional acceptance of a tender by the employer binds both parties, and a contract is thereby formed, the terms of which are ascertainable from the invitation to the tender, the tender, the acceptance and any other relevant