LAW OF AGENCY

BY:
MOHD AB MALEK BIN MD SHAH
UiTM MELAKA

AGENT
AGENT
REPRESENTS
PRINCIPAL &
DEALS WITH
3RD PARTY

CONTRACT
OF AGENCY
EXISTED

PRINCIPAL

PARTIES
TO THE
CONTRACT

THIRD PARTY

Act
Parties
involved
(Sec.135)

Part X of
Contracts
Act 1950
Agent (Sec. 137)
Principal (Sec. 136)

3rd party

2 contracts
exist:

PRINCIPAL
(Sec.136)

PRINCIPAL & AGENT

PRINCIPAL & 3rd PARTY
Age of majority
Sound mind
Any person

AGENT
(Sec.137)

Minor / unsound mind

agent is not liable
towards his principal
for the act done

NATURE OF AGENCY
The contractual relationship which subsists between a
Principal and an Agent where the Agent has been
authorized to act for the Principal or represent him in in
contractual dealings with 3rd party (to create a legal
relationship with the 3rd party).

It also refers to the relationship between a Principal and

an Agent whereby the Principal (expressly / impliedly)
authorizes the Agent to work under his control and on
his behalf.
Common Law principle : Quit facit per alium, facit per se
which means the one who acts through another, acts in his
or her own interests.

AGENT
Definition : A person employed to do any act
for another or represent another in dealings with
3rd persons (authorized to act on another
persons behalf) : Sec . 135.
Qualification : Any person (including minor &
lunatic persons) Sec. 137.
Chan Yee Tee v William Jacks & Co (Malaya)
Ltd [1964]
Held :
Any person; irrespective of his competency
to such contract, may become an agent, for
whose acts the principal may be liable to the 3rd
parties.

PRINCIPAL
Definition : The person for whom the act is
done or who is so represented (authorizes the
agent to act on his behalf) : Sec. 135.
Also refers to the person for whom or on whose
behalf the agent acts.
Qualification : Sec. 136.
i) Age of majority; and
ii) Sound mind.

1) Express
appointmen
t

FORMATION
OF AGENCY
(5 WAYS)
n
o
i
t
a
fic
i
t
a
R
5)

2) Implied
appointment

3) Estoppel /
Holding out /
Representation

4) Necessity /
Emergency

Section 140 of
Contracts Act
1950

1) By Express
Appointment

(i) ORAL form

Case : Royal Insurance
Group v David [1976]

(ii) WRITTEN form

(a) When a person by his

conducts holds out another
as having authority to act for
him

(b) Relationship between

HUSBAND & WIFE
(c) Partners are each
others
agents
when
contracting in the course of
the partnership business
(Sec.7 of Partnership Act

2) By IMPLIED
Appointment

(a) When a person by his conducts holds

out another as having authority to act for
him : Section 140 and Illustration.

Refers to the implied consent of the principal

and the agent.
Derived from the words and conduct of the
parties in the way they have acted in connection
to one another.
E.g.: By allowing another person to order
goods on his behalf and habitually pays for
them.

Chan Yin Tee v Williams Jacks & Co.

(Malaya)Ltd [1964]
Held :
Yong was held to be an agent by way of
implied appointment; who had the authority to
do things on his behalf.

(b) Relationship between husband

and wife
Presumption : The wife has an
authority to pledge her husbands
credit for necessaries which suited
to their style of living.

(c) Section 7 of the Partnership

Act 1961 (Revised 1971)
Partners are others agents when
contracting in the course of the
partnership business.

3) BY RATIFICATION : Section 149 - 153

1) An agent who
has duly appointed
has exceeded his
authority; or
2) A person who has
no authority to act for
the principal has
acted as if he has the
authority

BY RATIFICATION (Sec. 149

153)

Definition : The approval by act, words or

conduct of that which was attempted (of
accomplishment), but was improperly or
unauthorisedly performed in the first
instance (Hatman v Hornsby (1897) ).
General practice : The principal gives
priority to an agent to act for him in a
transaction.
In fact, the principal has an option whether
to adopt (approve) the act of the agent or
vice versa : Section 149.
Thus, if he approves the transaction, he is
said to be ratifying the act. (certification /
acceptance made by the principal).
Ratification may be express or implied :
Section 150.

EFFECT OF RATIFICATION :
Section 149
It binds retrospectively (from
the date when the original contract
was made by the agent, not from
the date of ratification by the
principal).
Bolton Partners v Lambert
(1889)
Held :
- The ratification related back
to the time of acceptance; so
that the
withdrawal
was
effective.

9 CONDITIONS FOR RATIFICATION

1) An unauthorised act by agent.
2) The unauthorised act is not illegal (must be
recognised by law).
3) The agent must, at the time of the contract,
expressly acts as an agent for the
principal :
- Section 149.
- He must not allow the 3rd party to think that
he
is the principal.
- Keighley Maxted & Co. v Durant (1901)
Held :
- Keighley was not liable to Durant (3rd party).
- Keighley had not ratified Roberts contract
since
Robert at the time of the contract
did not
profess to act as agent.

Contd...
- S. R. M. Meyappa Chettiar v Lim Lian
Koo
[1954]
Held :
- The terms of the contract showed that
Palaniappa Chettiar was acting in his personal
capacity. Thus, the principle of ratification
cannot be applied to the contract.
4) The principal must exist at the time the
contract was made.
- The principal must have been in existence or
ascertainable at the time the transaction was
entered into.
- Common Law : An entity which came into
existence after the act could not ratify the act.

Contd
- Kepong Prospecting Ltd v Schmidt [1968]
Privy Council:
- Services rendered to a company before
formation could not amount to consideration
and that a company could not bind itself to
pay for them.
- Kelner v Baxter [1866]
Held:
- A contract to buy a hotel made by an agent on
behalf of the company which was about to be
formed, could not be ratified by the company
since it did not exist at that time.
- Yet, Section 35 (1) & (2) of the Companies
1965:
A company which is subsequently coming into
existence may ratify a prior ratification.

Contd...
- Ahmad bin Salleh v Rawang Hills Resort
Sdn
Bhd [1995]
Held :
- The plaintiffs were estopped from from
raising this issue as they had until just before
the trial, accepted the defendants as a legal
entity in the first sale and purchase agreement.
5) The principal must have a contractual
capacity both during the contract is made and
at the time of ratification (must be of the
age of majority and be of sound mind).
6) The principal must have known all the
material facts (full knowledge) at the time of
ratification :
- Section 151.
- Taylor v Smith.

Contd
7) The principal must ratify the whole act or
contract.
- Section 152.
- Total ratification (not partially).
8) The ratification must be made within a reasonable
time.
- Metropolitan Asylum Board Kingham and
Sons (1890)
Held :
- The principals purported ratification on the
agents
contract to buy eggs without authority
one week
after was void.
- Gorver and Gorver v Mathews (1910)
Held :
- A fire insurance policy ratified after the event
insured
against had happened was held to be
ineffective.

Contd...
9) Must not injure the interest of the
3rd party
- Section 153 & Illustration.
Thus,
ratification
converts
a
previously unauthorised act into an
authorised act whereby the principal
consenting
to
the
earlier
unauthorised agency relationship.

4) BY NECESSITY / EMERGENCY :
Section 142

Arises in 2 situations :
i) A wife, who is deserted / is justified in
leaving her husband and has no means of
support, can pledge her husbands credit for
necessaries of life according to the income and
position of her husband, even against his wishes.
ii) For commercial purposes : When a person
is entrusted with anothers property and it
becomes necessary to act to preserve that
property from lossess.
Great Northern Railway v Swaffield (1874)
Held :
- The plaintiff (the railway company) had acted
as an agent of necessity in this matter.
- The relationship between the principal and
agent is
without mutual consent.

2 SITUATIONS (COMMON
LAW)

4 CONDITIONS
1) There must be a situation of necessity
(real and actual emergency)
- Factors
to
be
considered
:
Dangerousity;
facilities available,
life, time, distance etc.
- If it is just a mere incovenience :
Only liable
for conversion (tortious
liability).
- Phelps James & Co. v Hill.
- Sachs v Miklos.
2) The agent is entrusted with the
principals property / goods:
- Section 142.
- Jebbara v Ottoman Bank.
- E.g.: The agent is instructed to deliver
goods to
a particular destination.

Contd
3) It is impossible to get principals
instructions at that time :
- Section 167.
- Springer v Great Western Railway
Company
(1921)
Held :
- The defendants were not agents of
necessity
because they failed to
communicate with the
plaintiff when
they could have done so.
- The agent may use his own discretion to
make decision if he fails to communicate
with the
principal.
4) The agent has acted in good faith
(bona fide).
- The act must be reasonable and prudent
(no
personal interest).

5) BY ESTOPPEL / HOLDING OUT

WANT TO BUY MY
CAR? DISCUSS
WITH JOHN

JOHN WAS NEVER APPOINTED

BY PRINCIPAL AS AGENT
AGENT

MEETS JOHN, DISCUSS &

BUYS CAR FROM JOHN

PRINCIPAL

- JOHN IS AN AGENT BY ESTOPPEL.

- THE PRINCIPAL IS ESTOPPED
FROM DENYING JOHNS AUTHORITY

3RD PARTY

Contd

9 DUTIES OF AN AGENT TO HIS PRINCIPAL

1. To obey the principals instructions;
2. In the absence of instructions from the
principal, to act according to the customs;
3. To exercise care and diligence in carrying out
his work and to use such skill as he
possesses;
4. To render proper accounts when required;
5. To pay to his principal all sums received on
his behalf;
6. To communicate with the principal;
7. Not to let his interest conflict with his duty;
8. Not to make any secret profit out of

1) To obey the principals lawful

instructions

Section 164.
Failure to obey:
May amount to breach of contract.
Agent will be liable for any loss
sustained by principal on account of the
breach.
Turpin v Bilton [1843]
Held :
- The agent was held liable when he failed
to insure a ship when instructed to do
so
and the ship was lost.

Contd
Bostock v Jardine 3 H. & C. 700
Held :
- The agent was liable when he bought more
than he was directed to buy.
Cohen v Kittel (1889)
Held :
- Agent has no duty to obey unlawful
instructions of the principal.
Waugh v HG Clifford and Sons [1982]
Held:
- There is also a duty not to exceed the
instructions given by the principal to the agent.

2) To act according to the customs

(in the absence of instructions)

Section 164 & Illustration (b).

If not, the agent will be liable to pay for any
lossess suffered by the principal.

3) To exercise due care and dilligence in

carrying out his duties

Section 165.
The agent must act with reasonable diligence
and use the skills he possesses.
E.g.: If an agent is appointed to sell goods, it is
his duty to obtain the best price as possible.
Keppel v Wheeler (1972)
Held :
- The defendant was liable to the plaintiff for
the difference between the 2 offers.
- This is based on the inference that the agent
must disclose everything coming to his
knowledge which is likely to influence the
principal or making the contract.

4) To render proper account when required

Section 166.
The agent must produce account for all
money and property if demanded by the
principal.
Foley v Hill (1848)
Held:
- The agent is under a general duty to
account to the principal.
Yasuda Fire and Marine Insurance Co of
Europe Ltd v Orion Marine Insurance
Underwriting Agency Ltd [1995]
Held :
- The agent has a duty to provide the
principal with access to the agents records.

5) To communicate with the principal

Section 167.
In cases of difficulty: The agent must use all
reasonable diligence in communicating
with and in seeking to obtain instructions
from the principal.
Yet, in emergencies: The agent may use his
own discretion in adopting a course of action
to safeguard the interest of the principal:
Section 142.

6) Not to let his own interest

conflict with his duty

Section 169.
The agent must act solely for the benefit of
the principal.
The agent cannot allow his own personal
interest to conflict with his duty (no
conflict of interest).

Acting in good faith & no conflict of

interest

Can be proved in 3 situations:

i) Not a party to the transaction with the
principal.
- Armstrong v Jackson [1917]
Held :
- The agent has not acted in good faith as
he becomes a party to the transaction with
the principal.
- Wong Mun Wai v Wong Tham Fatt and
Anor (1987)
- Illustration (a) of Section 168.

Contd
ii) Cannot act on behalf of both parties to a
transaction at one time without their consent
- Fulwood v Hurley.
iii) Must disclose everything that he knows to
the principal relating to all material facts of
the contract; as well as not to disclose the
principals secret to others.
- Illustration (b) of Section 169.
iv) Cannot mix the monies and profits which
belong to the principal with his own money /
property.
- Lyell v Kennedy.

7) Not to make any secret profit out of

performance of his duty

Section 168.
Secret profit :
- A bribe; or
- Payment of a secret commission; or
- Any financial advantage which an agent
received over and above the commission; or
- Other remuneration agreed by the parties.
If the principal knows about the secret profit
and consents to it, the agent is entitled to
keep the profit he makes since the profit is
no longer secret : Section 168.

Contd

If the principal knows about the secret profit but he

does not consent, certain remedies available:
i) Repudiate the contract;
- Shipway v Broadwood [1899]
ii) Recover the amount of the bribe from the agent
: Section 169.
- Tan Kiong Hwa v Andrews S. H. Chong (1974)
Held :
- The plaintiff was entiltled to recover $9000 from
the defendant as the defendant had
breached
breached his duty as an agent.
- Blackham v Haythorpe (1917)
Held : The principal was entitled to recover the
secret profit made by the agent.

Contd...

iii) Refusal to the payment of such

commission or other remunerations.
Andrews v Ramsay and Co (1903)
Held:
- The plaintiff (principal) could recover
both sums the commission paid to the
agent and the secret commission received
by the defendant from the 3rd party.
iv) Terminate the agents authority.
v) Sue both agent and the 3rd party giving
the bribe for any losses sustained.

Contd
- Mahesan v Malaysian Government
Officers Co operative Housing Society
Ltd [1978]
Privy Council:
- The respondent could recover either the
bribe or the amount of the actual loss
suffered by its as a result of entering into
the contract.

8) Give all money received to the

principal

The agent must pay to his principal all sums

received on behalf of the principal: Section
171.
Yet, the agent may retain or deduct:
i) Advances made / expenses incurred by
him in carrying out of his duty;
ii) His commission;
iii) Other remunerations payable to him.
The agent has a right to retain the principals
property under his possession until his
remuneration is paid / right of lien (but he
cannot sell it) : Section 174.

9) Cannot delegate the authority given

Maxim: Delegatus non potest degare

(A delegate may not delegate).
The relationship between the principal and
agent is personal (based on mutual trust and
confidence).
Exceptions:
i) Approved by the principal.
- De Busche v Alt (1878)
Held:
- The principal was bound by the acts of the
sub agent as there was expressly
authorised delegation.
ii) Presumed from the conduct of the
parties.

Contd
iii) The custom, usage or practice of the
trade or business permits delegation.
iv) During necessity or an unforeseen
emergency.
v) Necessary to complete the business.
vi) The act to be done is purely ministerial or
clerical or adiminstrative and does not
involve the exercise of any special
discretion or skill.
- Allan & Co. v Europa Poster Services Ltd
[1968]
Held:
- The delegation to the solicitors was a purely
ministerial act involving no confidence or
discretion.

3 DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL
1. To pay the agent the commission or other
agreed remunerations unless the agency
relationship is gratuitous;
2. Not to willfully prevent or hinder the agent from
earning his commission; and
3. To indemnify / reimburse for any acts done in the
exercise of his authority.

(1) To pay the agent the commission or

other agreed remunerations unless the
agency relationship is gratuitous.
The principal is only obliged to pay the agent if
the agent complied with the terms of the
agency agreement and when the agent
has earned the payment (Moir v Martine
(1891) ).
Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper [1941]
Held :
- There was no implied term in the contract
between the agent and principal whereby the
principal would not, without just cause,
prevent the agent from earning his
commission.
The amount payable depends on the terms
of the contract; if not, on quantum meruit
basis.

Contd...

If the agent is guilty of misconduct in

the business of the agency, he loses
his right to remuneration : Section 173.
Misconduct: Any wrongful / improper
conduct which results in a wrongful
gain to the agent or a wrongful loss to
the principal.

2) Not to wilfully prevent or hinder the

agent from earning his commission.

The principal should not employ another

agent (2nd agent) in the midst of negotiations
in order to deprive the original agent of his
commission.
The principal also cannot refuse the contracts
made by the agent with any reason.
The agents right to commission is not affected
even if the transaction has not been beneficial
to the principal or if the transaction has
subsequently fallen through no fault of the
agent.
Moir v Martinie (1891).
Harris v Petherick (1878).

3) To indemnify and reimburse the agent

for acts done on the exercise of his
duties
Section 175.
Situations where the agent can be
indemnified and reimbursed:
i) Agent incurred losses / liability when
performing his duties (no negligence).
ii)Agent causes injuries to the 3rd party
by
carrying out instructions (no
negligence).
- Section 176 & Illustration (b).
iii) Agent suffers injuries by carrying out
the
instructions (no negligence).
- Section 178.

Contd...
- Kyall and Evatt v Lim Kim Keat (1928)
Held :
- The sharebrokers were entitled to be
indemnified for their losses because the
agent of the executrix failed to disclose
the facts that he knew about the
necessary grant of probate had not been
taken out in England.
- Davison v Fernandes (1889)
Held :
- The plaintiff was not entitled to be
indemnified by the defendant (negligently
failed to properly inform the defendant on
the information requested).

Contd
- Solloway and Anor v McLaughlin
(1938)
Held:
- The agents, who engaged in a
fraudulent
scheme to defraud
their principals, would forfeit their
right to an indemnity in respect of
transactions which formed part of the
fraud.

CLASSIFICATION OF AGENT
A) According to the
EXTENT OF AUTHORITY

1. A UNIVERSAL AGENT
2. A GENERAL AGENT
3. A SPECIAL AGENT

B) According to
the FUNCTIONS

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

DEL CREDERE AGENT

FACTORS
BROKERS
AUCTIONEERS
BANKERS
Bankers as an
agent for
customer
Bank employees
as agents for the
bank

General agent with extensive

(VERY RARE IN EXCEPTIONAL
SITUATIONS)

1) Universal Agent

Created by deed in the form of

General Power of Attorney.
Eg:- lawyer-client

Employed to act on behalf of

his principal generally in
transaction to particular
2) General Agent
trade/ business.
3rd party can assume the
agent has power to do all that
is; usual in the ordinary
Eg:- Business Agentcourse of his
trade/business.

Appointed to do a
specific act /
for a specific purpose

3) Special Agent

His authority is
limited

B) ACCORDING TO THE FUNCTIONS

A)Del Credere
Agent

- Gets extra commission fo

super added duty

- Undertakes to the principal

the 3rd party fails to perform
that the 3rd party will perform
e obligation :e agent will be liable for ithis obligation
-Campbell v Kitchen & Sons
econdary liability)
Ltd (1910)

B) Factor

Commercial agent
In ordinary course of
business is entrusted with
the goods of his principal
for sale
Not disclose his principal
& sell the goods in his
own name
He has a lien over the
goods in his possession
as commission

Commercial agent

C. Broker

He is employed to make a cont

Between his principal and 3rd p

Get commission called broker

Not entrusted with the possess

of the goods & cannot contract
his own name.
Eg. Insurance agent

D. Auctioneer

He is employed to sell
the goods by auction
He starts off as an agent for a
seller but when he accepts a
bid from a buyer, he becomes
an agent for the buyer also
(a) Banker as an agent
for customer

E. Banker
(b) Banker employees as an
agent for the bank

THE AUTHORITY OF AN AGENT

GENERAL RULE
Agents act is binding on the principal if it is done
within his authority.
If excess of that authority, it does not bind the princ
unless he adopts / ratifies the unauthorized act.
Classified into TWO

ACTUAL
AUTHORITY

APPARENT/
OSTENSIBLE
AUTHORITY

ACTUAL AUTHORITY
The authority given to the agent through an
agreement between the principal and the
agent.

Authority expressly
I-

AUTHORITY IMPLIED

Express authority that is a

given by the principal orally/ powers as are proper or
necessary to execute the
in writing.
express authority
Section 141 :
II- The circumstances of the c
a) Agent has authority to do
III- The custom or usage of tra
an act;
b) Agent has authority to IV- The situation and conduct
the parties
carry out the business.

APPARENT/OSTENSIBLE
AUTHORITY
Which
Which the
the law
law regards
regards the
the agent
agent as
as possessing
possessing
although
although the
the principal
principal may
may not
not have
have
consented
consented to
to his
his exercising
exercising such
such authority
authority
Apparent or ostensible authority is where
the Agent has no authority at all but the
Principal is bound by the acts of the Agent
if the Principal makes it appear to the 3rd
Party that the Agent has the authority.

ARISES IN 2 SITUATIONS
1) Where a principal by
his words or
conduct, leads at
third party to
believe that his
agent has authority
to make contract
for him.
- Section 190
- Graphics Lines Pte
Ltd v Cahi Chee
Mein (1987).

2) Where the agent

previously had
authority to act, but
that authority was
terminated by the
principal without
notice to 3rd party.
- Overbrook Estate Ltd
v Glencombe
Properties Ltd [1974].

AGENTS LIABILITY FOR

UNAUTHORIZED ACTS

Section 180:
When the authorized action can be
separated from the unauthorized
action, only those actions which are
within his authority is binding on
the principal.
Section 181:
When the agent acts beyond his
authority which cannot be separated
from those actions that are within
his authority, the principal is not
bound by the transaction.

EFFECTS OF CONTRACTS BY
AGENTS
A contract entered into by an agent on
behalf of the principal is binding on the
principal and the effects of the contracts
may depend on whether the 3rd party is
aware of the existence of the principal.
Categories of
principal
UNDISCLOSE
D PRINCIPAL
EXISTENCE & IDENTITY
OF PRINCIPAL IS NOT
DISCLOSED TO 3RD PARTY

NAMED
PRINCIPAL
NAME OF
PRINCIPAL
IS DISCLOSED TO
3RD PARTY

DISCLOSE
D
PRINCIPAL
EXISTENCE OF
PRINCIPAL
IS DISCLOSED TO 3RD
PARTY BUT NOT HIS
NAME

NAMED PRINCIPAL
Section 183
-The principal
alone who can sue
and be sued under
the contract ;
- Provided that the
agent has acted
on behalf of the
principal

The agent agrees

to make himself
personally liable
CHIN YUEN TUNG
case

Effect
Section
179

EXCEPTIONS
The agent
executes a
deed in his
own name

The agent signs

a negotiable
instrument in
his own name

The agent has

exceeded his
authority

DISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
EXISTENCE OF PRINCIPAL IS DISCLOSED TO 3RD
PARTY BUT NOT HIS NAME
The agent has no liability under
the contract
The principal has the right to
sue and be sued over the
contract

EXCEPTIONS
3rd party
does not
know the
credit &
standing of
the principal

Agent remains liable

even after the
discovery of the
principal by 3rd party
unless released by 3rd

Principal is a
foreign sovereign
or a minor or
insane person

UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL
THE EXISTENCE & IDENTITY OF PRINCIPAL IS
NOT DISCLOSED TO THE 3RD PARTY
Rights of
the 3rd
party
~3rd party has the
right to claim/sue
either the
agent
/principal/both
~PERNAS
TRADING SDN
BHD v

Rights of
the
principal
~ Principal may
require the
performance of
the contract by
the 3rd party
even though the
3rd party does
not know that
there is a

Rights of
the agent
~

The agent

can claim his

rights under the
contract is actually
his contract and
he has been acting
as if he was

Termination of Agency
(Section 154 163)
BY OPERATION OF
LAW

BY ACT OF THE
PARTIES
1.By mutual consent
(Sec.154).

2 WAYS

1.
2.

1.Revocation by the
principal.
(Sec.154 / 156 / 158 /
159 / 160).

3.

3.Renunciation by
the agent
(Section 154).

6.

4.
5.

Contract of agency has

been performed.
Expiry period fixed in
the contract of agency.
Death of principal or
agent.
Frustration / Change of
law.
Subsequent insanity of
principal or agent.
Insolvency of principal.

REVOCATION BY PRINCIPAL
(EXCEPTIONS : Sec. 155 / 157 / 161)

Section 155 :
- The agent himself has an interest
in the property (subject matter
of the agency).
- cannot be terminated to the
prejudice of such interest.
- Illustration (a) of Section 155.
- Illustration (b) of Section 155 .
Smart v Sanders (1848).
Firth v Firth [1906].

Contd

Section 157 :
- If the authority has been partially been
exercised by the agent.
- after the authority has been
partly exercised.
- Read v Anderson [1884]
Section 161 :
- The notice of revocation by the principal
could only be effective when it comes to
the knowledge of the agent / 3rd party.
- If either the agent or 3rd party knows
about the notice of termination, such
notice is not effective.
- Pichappa Chitty v Hj. Jah (1897).
- Trueman v Loder (1840).

ACT OF PARTIES
Either the Agent renounces his authority or Principal
revokes Agents authority, reasonable notice must
be given.
If the notice is not sufficient, the person who gives
such insufficient notice is liable to pay damages.
Sec. 158.
SOHRABJI v ORIENTAL SECURITY ASSURANCE CO.
Held :
- 2 years notice was reasonable as agency lasted
nearly 50 years.

SYARIKAT JAYA v STAR PUBLICATION (M) BHD

Held:
- 6 months notice was reasonable.

WASSALAM...
And...
THANK YOU.......

A smooth sea never made a skilled mariner.

~ English Old Proverb