moo92
Mar 26, 2012, 05:22 AM
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?
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?