You are on page 1of 13


PPL 2213
Azman Syafiq bin Abdullah HU1517413 DPHU 4C

Muhammad Ikmalul Hakim HU1517356 DPHU 4C

bin Ikhwan Hafiz

Saifuddin a farmer in Penang instructed Jali who ran a

transportation service, to deliver some fishes, vegetables and
groceries to Johor. When the lorry arrived at the causeway,
there were heavy rain and flood which caused the road to be
closed. Jali thinking that the situation will get worse and
worried that the vegetables and fishes would get rotten,
decided to sell it at the village nearby. Saifuddin is upset with
the decision and wants to claim for losses suffered.
Advise Saifuddin.
First Issue

1. Whether Jali breaches his duty to obey Saifuddin


Muka surat 87
Agency is the relationship which subsists between a principal and agent
who is authorized to act on behalf of the principal.

Duties of an agent to his principal.

As an agent, he has to obey the direction given by the principal. Section
164 of the Contracts Act (the Act) state that An agent is bound to
conduct the business of his principal according to the directions given by
the principal, or if there is no direction, according to the custom. When
agent acts otherwise, if any loss is sustained, he must make it good to his
principal, and if any profit accrues, he must account for it.
Thus agent must act according to direction given by principal and if
there is no direction, he must act according to custom.
This is illustrated in the case of Turpin vs Bilton (1843) where an agent
was instructed to insure a ship. He failed to do so. The ship loss. The
court held that he was liable to the principal for the loss suffered.

Nevertheless, agent must only obey lawful instruction of principal.

If the instruction unlawful, agent is not obliged to follow and failure is
not considered as breach of contract. In Cohen vs Kittel (1849) , an
agent was instructed to place bet but he failed to do so. The court
held that as he was asked to perform a wagering contract, he was not
obliged to comply with the principal instruction.
Applying the authorities to the present situation, the instruction
given was to deliver fishes, vegetables and groceries to Johor. The
instruction was lawful. Thus, it should be followed. Jali did not obey
the instruction by selling some fishes, vegetables and groceries at
the village nearby. Thus, I strongly conclude that Jali has breach
Saifuddin instruction.
Second issue

Whether Jali is an agent by necessity.

Agency by necessity may be created in emergency cases. In
Section 142 of the act, An agent has authority in an emergency,
to do all such acts for the purpose of protecting his principal from
loss as would be down by a person of ordinary prudence, in is own
case , under similar circumstances.
In the case Great Northern Railway Co vs Swaffield. The
railway company carried the defendant horse to its destination. On
arrival, there was no one to meet. Since the station master did not
know the defendant or his agent address, he instructed that the
horse to be put in stable. Later, the railway company claimed for
the charges for the stable from the defendant. However, the
defendant refuse to paying. It was held that the plaintiff the railway
company had acted as agent of necessity in this matter. The horse
needed to be kept save in the stable. Therefore, their claim was
Three conditions to be fulfilled before an agency by necessity can
be created

1. Impossible for the agent to get the principal instruction.

In Springer vs Great Western Railway Co (1921), the

defendants agreed to carry the plaintiffs tomatoes to Convent
Garden Market. However, the ship arrived late due to bad weather.
The defendants employees were on strike so the casual labourers
unloaded the tomatoes. Some of the tomatoes were found bad. The
defendants then decided to sell the tomatoes locally. They believed
that the tomatoes were not in sealable condition when arrived at
the Convent Garden Market. However, they did not communicate
their decision to the plaintiff. Then, the plaintiff claimed for
damages in conversion based on the market price of the tomatoes
in Convent Garden Market.
It was held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages because the
defendants were not agents of necessity. This is because they failed
to communicate with the plaintiff when they could have done so.
2. The agents action is necessary, in the circumstances, to
prevent loss to the principal with respect to the good.

3. The agent of necessity has acted in good faith

Meaning that the agent of necessity must act honestly is the transaction on
behalf of the principal.
Applying to this case, Jali fulfilled the second and third condition. He
did not fulfilled the first condition because he did not even try to
communicate with Saifuddin before selling the fishes, vegetables
and groceries at village nearby. Thus, I strongly conclude that Jali is
not an agent by necessity because he did not fulfilled the conditions
mentioned above.