Savill v Chase Holdings (Wellington) Ltd [1989] 1 NZLR 257

Facts:

Chase Holdings (CH) was a subsidiary of Chase Corporation (CC).
Agreement entered into whereby the Savills agreed to sell shares to CH.
The agreement was conditional upon CC agreeing to sell a piece of land to the Savills.
An agent acting for CH told the Savills that CC had agreed to sell the land.
CC denied it had agreed to sell and said that the agent had no authority.
The agent had used CC letterhead in his communication and business cards, he always answered thep hone "Chase Corporation" however he always signed letters in the name of CH.
Agent told the Savills that he was authorised by CC.


Held: The representations from CC were not enough to create apparent authority.
The representations from the agent could not create apparent authority since they must come from the principal,

Hi there, I'm finding it difficult to understand the result of this case. So does this mean that the contract held by between CH and the Savills are binding? What are the representations from CC? Doesn't the agent hold apparent authority because the Savills were unaware that the agent didn't have actual authority? And because it was held that the agent did not have apparent authority, does it result in CC having no obligation to give up their land?

We cannot do your homework for you, but we can give you pointers. Do you have a link to the text of this case?

This isn't homework, this is a case that me and a friend are struggling to understand. Notice what had been held is written down. The questions aforementioned were questions that we don't get because the information given is really vague. I can attach the actual case by the court of appeal but its very long and tiresome.

We believe that because the agent was very vague of his position representing CC, he has no authority to represent dealings for them. Thus, he could not say that CC would give up land; the agent has no authority. But what was held is really confusing, I still do not understand what the "representations of CC" were. etc. so my questions earlier stated are still are puzzling me.

It's not homework? How did it come up in conversation? My friends and I discuss legal problems all the time but never a case in this kind of depth.

Why is everyone so skeptical? We know this is a case that involves the idea of agency by estoppel. Basically our test is in 6 days, and we're going through past cases. This case we don't understand, like many others but I chose this case because it relates to the idea of single entity as well. If no one actually wants to help then just say so, don't just blatantly say we don't do homework cause this isn't.

... I still do not understand what the "representations of CC" were. etc. so my questions earlier stated are still are puzzling me.

From your summary of the case (and, although I Googled the case, I did not find a link to the actual text), it doesn't appear that there were any such representations (other than perhaps letting someone use it's letterhead). So that's probably why the court ruled the way it did.

So does this mean that the contract held by between CH and the Savills are binding? It is only binding if Chase Corporation made the representation that the agent was in fact their agent.

Doesn't the agent hold apparent authority because the Savills were unaware that the agent didn't have actual authority? The agent only holds apparent authority if the conduct(representation) of CC led Savills to believe that was the case.

And because it was held that the agent did not have apparent authority, does it result in CC having no obligation to give up their land?I would say that if Mr Savage did not have authority to bind Chase Holdings, then the agent is the True principal of that contract.

How odd that two different people had this non-homework conversation with their friends.