86 SALE AND WARRANTY BY AN AGENT OR SERVANT. 



delegate this power to anyone else ; (a) and whether it is 

 special or general the mandate given is held to include all the 

 necessary and usual means of executing it with efFect.(6) The 

 authority may be either general or special according to its 

 extent ; and it is either express or implied, according as the 

 agent has a definite duty to do, or acts in pursuance of his 

 ordinary employment. There is this distinction between the 

 general mandate of an agent such as a horse dealer and the 

 special mandate of a servant, that in the former case third 

 parties dealing with him are not affected by any private 

 instructions given him by the master, but in the latter case 

 they must inquire as to the extent of his authority, or take 

 the consequences if they do not.(c) 



The agent cannot exceed his authority express or implied. 

 Thus, he is not allowed to exchange one horse for another if 

 his authority be limited to selling,(cZ) and if he is limited to 

 selling he must receive the payment in money, and iwrnici 

 facie has no authority to receive it otherwise, (e) but such 

 authority may be inferred from usage (/) or special circum- 

 stances. ((/) Thus, Avhen an agent was told to secure a pair 

 of horses of a certain height and failed to do so, it was 

 indicated that the principal against whom judgment was 

 given, might have repudiated the bargain when the horses 

 were not conform to height. (A) AVhere the act is within his 

 authority, the principal is bound by the act of his agent, 

 even though it be fraudulent,(^) and is liable for damages for 



(a) Ersk. iii. 3, 34. 



(6) B.C. i. 516, also 511, n. 



(c) Chitty on Contracts, 301, 302, see infra, p. 87 ; Alexander v. Gibson, 1811, 

 2 Camp. 555 ; £rady v. Tod, 1861, 9 C.B., N.S. 592, 605. 



(d) Guerrciro v. Pcile, 1820, 3 B. and Aid. 616. 

 (s) Cattcrall v. II indie, 1867, L.R. 2 C.P. 368. 



(/) Bailey, J., in Pickering v. Busl; 1812, 15 East. 38, 45. 



(g) Miller v. Laicton, 1864, 15 C.B., N.S. 834. 



(A) Cossar v. Marjoribanlcs, 1826, 4 S. 685. 



(i) § 30. Cornfoot v. FowJce, 1840, 9 M. and W. 358 ; Willes, J., in Barnoch v. 

 Eng. J.-S. Bank, 1867, L.R. 2 Ex. 259 ; but an agont is not liable for a inisrepre- 

 .sentation innocently made, Eaglesfield v. M. Londonderry, 1875, L.R. 4 Cli. D. 

 693. See § 31. 



