SALE AND WARRANTY RY AN AGENT. 127 



petent for the party with wliom he contracts to show that, 

 although described as Agent, he is in fact the Principal (s) . 

 But there is a distinction between cases where an Agent in 

 effecting a contract for the purchase of goods does not dis- 

 close the existence of a Principal at all and cases where he 

 discloses that he has a Principal but does not give his 

 name ; and it has been held by Bowen, J., on further con- 

 sideration, that in the latter class of cases the vendor may 

 have recourse to the Principal though he has bond fide paid 

 the Agent for the goods, unless there has been such con- 

 duct on the vendor's part, e. g. delay in applying to the 

 Principal, as might justify the Principal in concluding that 

 the vendor was not looking to his credit but to that of the 

 Agent it) . 



Although the Pule of law is, that where a contract is PiinGipal 

 made by an Agent, the Principal may come in and take f^^^^o* be 

 the benefit of it, that doctrine cannot be applied where an^Ao-eut. 

 the Agent contracts as Principal (?r). Thus, Lord Ellen- 

 borough said, " If one partner makes a contract in his in- 

 dividual capacity, and the other partners are willing to 

 take the benefit of it, they mAist be content to do so, 

 according to the mode in which the contract was made" {x). 

 Thus, in Assumpsit on a charter-party executed, not by the 

 plaintiff, but by a third person, who in the contract 

 described himself as "owner" of the ship, it was held, 

 that evidence was not admissible to show that such person 

 contracted merely as the plaintiff's Agent {y). 



The Eule of law is, that the agent who makes the con- Their respeo- 

 tract may bring an action on the contract in respect of his artion^n*a°* 

 privity, and the Principal in respect of his interest {z) . Contract. 



If the Agent is appointed only for a particular purpose, "Warranty by 

 and is invested with limited powers, or, in other words, is Servant as 

 a special Agent ; then it is the duty of persons dealing T^gn/ 

 with such Agent to ascertain the extent of his authority ; 

 and the Principal will not be bound by any act of the 

 Agent not warranted expressly by, or by fair and neces- 

 sary implication from, the terms of the authority delegated 



(«) Can- V. Jackson, 7 Ex. 382. 117. 

 See also Pake v. Walker, L. R., 5 («) Humble v. Hunter, 12 Q. B. 



Ex. 173; 39 L. J., Ex. 109; 22 315. 

 L. T., N. S. 547. (x) Lucas v. Be la Com; 1 M. & 



(0 Irvhie ^ Co. v. Watson S; Sons, S. 249. 

 L. R., 5 Q. B. T>. 102; 49 L. J., (y) Hi(mh?c v. Hunter, 12 Q. B. 



Q. B. 239; 41 L. T., N. S. 51— 310. 

 Bowen, J. Affirmed W. N. 1880, [z) Si/kes v. OiJes, 5 M. & W. 650, 



