112 Tee law of agency.

13. When a third party gives credit to an agent for

goods, thinking that the agent is the principal, or not

knowing the name of the principal, if the principal be

Induced by the conduct of the seller to pay the money

to the agent, on the faith that the seller and the agent

have come to a settlement in the matter, or if any repre-

sentation to that effect be made by the seller, either by

words or by conduct, he cannot afterwards sue the

principal — vide Hecdd v. Kemuorthy (1855), 10 Ex. 739,

and Irvine v. Watson (1880), 5 Q. B. D. 414. C. A.

Liability of Agent for Breach of Warranty of Authority. —

A professing agent who represents that he has authority

from another person (whom he names, and who is existent)

to enter into a contract on his behalf, is held, by implication

of law, to warrant that he has such authority as he repre-

sents himself to have, and is liable to be sued for any loss

or damage caused to the third party by a breach of such im-

plied warranty, even though the professing agent hondjide

believed that he had the authority which he professed to have.

Collen V. Wright (1857), 7 E. & B. 301 ; here the defen-

dant, who was the land agent of a gentleman named

Gardner, professing to have authority to do so, agreed with

the plaintiff to lease to him for a term of years a farm

belono-ing to Gardner. The defendant had not in fact any

authority to do so, and Gardner refused to ratify the con-

tract and execute the lease. The plaintiff then brought this

action against the executors of the agent, who were held

liable for the loss sustained by the plaintiff. Willes, J., in

delivering the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber, said ;

" The obligation arising in such a case is well expressed by

saying that a person professing to contract as agent for

another, impliedly, if not expressly, undertakes to or

])roiiiis('S the person who enters into such contract upon

the faith of the professed agent being duly authorized, that

the authority whicli he professes to have, does in point of

fact exist."

RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. 113

Richardson v. Williamson (1871), L. R. 6 Q. B. 276 ;

here Cockburn, C. J., said ; " By the law of England, persons

who induce others to act on the supposition that they have

authority to enter into a binding contract on behalf of

third persons, on it turning out that they have no such

authority, may be sued for damages for the breach of an

implied warranty of authority. This was decided in

Gollen V. Wrigltt (1857), 7 E. & B. 301, and other cases."

Firhank's Executors v. Hwmphreys (1886), 18 Q. B. D.

54. C. A ; here Brett, M.R., said ; " The rule to be deduced

is, that where a person, by asserting that he has the

authority of the principal, induces another person to enter

into any transaction which he would not have entered into

but for that assertion, and the assertion turns out to be

untrue to the injury of the person to whom it is made, it

must be taken that the person making it undertook that it

was true, and he is liable personally for the damage that

has occurred."

The same rule seems to apply where the agent is without

authority, owing to the incapacity of his supposed principal

to give him any ; as where the principal is a lunatic.

Dreiv V. Nunn (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 661. C. A. ; here Brett,

L. J., said ; " In my opinion, if a person, who has not been

held out as agent, assumes to act on behalf of a lunatic, the

contract is void against the supposed principal, and the

pretended agent is liable to an action for misleading an