Agent Fiduciary Duty Cases

Summary

The cases discussed emphasize the fiduciary duty of agents to act in the best interests of their principals, avoid conflicts of interest, and follow instructions strictly. Parker v McKenna (1874) and Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (1830) highlight the importance of avoiding conflicts and acting within the scope of authority. Boden v French (1851) focuses on contract interpretation and obligations. Lilley v Doubleday (1881) and Gillett v Peppercorne (1840) address agent liability for misappropriation and unauthorized profits. These cases underscore the necessity for agents to adhere to lawful instructions and act personally unless delegation is authorized.

Full Conversation

summarise Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (*) * Knapp * (PC);
In Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (*) * Knapp * (PC), the court dealt with issues of fiduciary duty and the responsibilities of agents to their principals. The case emphasized that agents must act in the best interest of their principals and avoid conflicts of interest.
Is there a specific aspect of the case you need more information on?
the agent's duty to act on instructions
In Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (*), the court highlighted that agents have a duty to act strictly according to the instructions given by their principals. Failure to do so can result in liability for any resulting losses.
Is there another aspect or case you’d like information on?
summarise the facts
In Parker v McKenna (*), the court established that agents must avoid conflicts of interest and account for benefits received while acting for their principals, highlighting fiduciary duty and loyalty.
In Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (*), the court emphasized agents' fiduciary duty to act in their principals' best interests and to follow instructions strictly to avoid liability for losses.
summarise boden v french (*)
Boden v French (*) is a contract law case that revolved around the interpretation of contract terms and the obligations of parties involved. The court focused on the specific terms agreed upon by the parties and the importance of fulfilling contractual commitments as per those terms.
summarise lilley v doubleday
In Lilley v Doubleday (*), the court addressed the issue of fiduciary duty and the responsibilities of agents. An agent misappropriated funds belonging to his principal. The court held that the agent was liable for the losses caused by his breach of duty.
Is there another aspect or case you need information on?
improve and reduce the word count of this paragraph: Firstly, an agent has a duty to act in accordance with the instructions of his principal in so far as they are lawful and reasonable. An agent must act only within the scope of his authority. When an agent acts under specific instruction he has no discretion to disobey those instructions, even if he believes he is acting in the principal’s best interests. However, if the instructions allow for discretion, there is no breach in the agent’s duty by exercising reasonable discretion. Commercial agents must ‘comply with reasonable instructions given by his principal’.
An agent must follow lawful and reasonable instructions of the principal and act within their authority. Specific instructions leave no room for discretion, even if the agent believes they act in the principal's best interests. Discretionary instructions permit reasonable decision-making. Commercial agents must comply with reasonable instructions from the principal.
What is the authority on conflict of interest in agency
The authority on conflict of interest in agency is primarily established through case law, highlighting the fiduciary duty of agents to their principals. Key cases include:
- Parker v McKenna (*): Agents must avoid conflicts of interest and account for benefits received while acting for principals.
- Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (*): Agents must act in the best interest of their principals and avoid conflicts of interest.
Is there a specific aspect or further detail you need on this topic?
what is the authority on duty to act personally in agency
Case Rating: *
The duty to act personally in agency is primarily derived from the principle that an agent must perform their duties personally unless otherwise authorized. This is well established in case law:
- De Bussche v Alt (*): An agent cannot delegate their duties without the principal's consent unless the delegation is customary in the trade or necessary to achieve the purpose of the agency.
Is there a specific case or aspect you need more details on?
what is the authority on agent following instructions
The authority on agents following instructions is primarily derived from case law. Key cases include:
- Bertram, Armstrong & Co v Godfray (*): Agents must follow the principal's instructions strictly and are liable for any resulting losses if they fail to do so.
- Lilley v Doubleday (*): Agents are liable for losses caused by their breach of duty if they fail to follow instructions.
Is there another specific aspect you need more details on?
summarise Gillett v Peppercorne (*) * Beav *.
In Gillett v Peppercorne (*) * Beav *, the court dealt with the issue of fiduciary duty. The case emphasized that an agent must not profit from their position without the principal's consent and must act in the principal's best interests.
Is there another case or specific detail you need information on?
what are the facts in Gillett v Peppercorne (*) * Beav *.
Gillett v Peppercorne (*) * Beav * focuses on the fiduciary duties of agents. The facts of the case are:
- An agent sold property on behalf of the principal.
- The agent profited from the transaction without the principal's knowledge.
- The court held that the agent must account for any unauthorized profits made.
Is there another aspect or case you need more information on?