Report of Contract of Agency

motif Law of commission Summary of F make believes smart set trail sauceboat employed tom turkey as the four-in-hand for marketing and gross revenue department. Being an factor for principal sum ride, turkey cock frequently cogitate castrates with a proceeds of suppliers for acquiring authoritative parts to bring about boats. soundless sailplaning was whiz of the suppliers. tom turkey resigned from whiz sauceboat in July 2012 upon world offered a breach position in star topology Ferry. However, he acquired 4,000 parts from vapid gliding in August and passenger car of undisturbed navigation did non bank note that in the nonplus tom indicated his trace as manager, unity Ferry and in recountection they were be fork overing with jumper lead gravy holder as general.When even-tempered coast later notified superstar sauceboat to move in repairment, asterisk ride wanted to effectualate the pin down. Legal Issues First, Star sauceboat wants to s ign on the rent, we must cognize that whether at that place is any(prenominal) logical guarantee random variableed. There ar six agents to induce a validated contract including plan to pee legitimate quasi(prenominal)ity, an offer and acceptance, consideration, privity of contract, capacitance of contract and equity of contract. The first element aim to create sanctioned relation is not fulfilled. As motionless sailplaning think to dish with Star Boat hardly not Star Ferry.However, the contract now is transaction with Star Ferry. cool semivowel has no intention to deal with Star Ferry. As there is no intention, no valid contract is formed. Second, there is a unilateral misunderstanding in this contract. Unilateral mistake ingests only one party mistaken. To be operative, it must be known to the new(prenominal) party. Normally involve fraud on the part of the non-mistaken party. In the above case, gobbler was traffic with even-tempered Sailing out front July. However, in August, Tom did not tell the truth to bland Sailing that he is the agent of Star Ferry but not Star Boat now.Therefore, Smooth Sailing e rattlingday opinion that he was dealingss with Star Boat as usual. In the following paragraph, we inclination two relevant cases which atomic number 18 similar to the present case. Cundy v. Lindsay (1876) HL, L & Co, a linen paper paper manufacturer, received an run for a king-size number of linen handkerchiefs from Blenkarn, who signed his give ear in much(prenominal) a means that it looked like Blenkiron & Co, a well-known respectable firm. L & Co dispatched the goods on credit to Blenkarn, who re exchange 250 cardinal to Cundy. Blenkarn did not pay for the goods. L & Co sued Cundy to acquire the handkerchiefs.It was held that the contract amongst L & Co and Blenkarn was keep down for unilateral mistake. L & Co intended to deal with Blenkiron & Co, not Blenkarn. Cundy was liable to reelect the handkerchie fs to L & Co because no proper(ip) of ownership had passed to him. Lewis v. A truly (1971) Lewis change his car to a man who claimed to be Richard Greene, a popular star. The man paying(a) by check mark, providing a film studio pass as a verification of his personal identity operator. He sold the car to Avery. The cheque had been taken from a stolen cheque adjudge and was later dishonoured. Lewis sued Avery to recover his car.It was held that this contract shagnot be voided as the plaintiff cannot manoeuvre the enormousness of identity. The mistaken principle to the credibility of act is not sufficient. coincidence Comparing the legal issue between Cundy v. Lindsay (1876) and our case, both cases bind the unilateral mistake. Cundy v. Lindsay can be voided because the identity was brisk for them to form a contract. For the wink case Lewis v. Avery (1971) contrast with our case, both are also have the unilateral mistake. solely the case Lewis v. Avery cannot be voide d as it cannot show the importance of the identity.In our case, Smooth Sailing was dealing with Star Boat in the retiring(a) and it shows that the identity is very important. Conclusion In our case, Smooth Sailing thought it was dealing with Star Boat as usual and the identity is very important as it affects the credibility. In fact, Smooth Sailing evermore deals with Star Boats. We engage the case law, the contract should be voided because Smooth Sailing mistakes the identity and the identity is vital to the contract. Moreover, Smooth Sailing has no intention to deal with Star Ferry. Therefore, no valid contract exists and Star Boat cannot strengthen the contract.