THE DUTY OF AGENTS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXIX, Issue 169, 16 July 1908, Page 6

THE DUTY OF AGENTS.

AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT. A judgment of great interest to tbe mercantile community was delivered by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S__., this morning, in the case of Pottkaemper and Co. v. J. Eoorey. The plaintiffs were represented by Mr. Sharpies, and Mr. Burton appeared for the defendant. In givin his judgment. Mr. E_xtle said that the plaintiffs were indent and commission agents in Auckland, and the defendant was a general retail dealer in watches, jewellery, fancy goods, curios, etc, in Napier. In March. 1907. the defendant wrote to the plaintiffs, requesting them to order and import for him from abroad some greenstone tikis and pendants, and stated that if the prices suited him, he would order more. The plaintiffs wrote to Messrs. Keep Bros., of Birmingham, with the order, and instructed them to get it executed. Keep and Co. informed the plaintiffs that the price of large tikis was 32 /3 each and the smaller 23/ B. This camp message was not communicated to the defendant. About Nov. 8 Keep and Co. shipped the tikis and one of the pendants, and forwarded the invoice, charging 34/ each for the large and 25/ for the small tikis, and 36/ for the pendant. The goods were forwarded' to the defendant, and the plaintiffs wrote to the defendant claiming £86 10/ for 1 dozen tikis at 60/ each, 1 dozen at 80/ each, and one pendant at 50/. They also stated that in future they would have to charge for each of these tikis £3 5/ and £4 6/7. The working expenses seemed to have gone up, and the home manufacturers declined ord-srs unless at tbe advanced prices. His Worship could find nothing in the correspondence to justify this. The plaintiff in May last sued the defendant for £ SO 10/ for "damages sustained by reason of the defendant "refusing to accept and pay for goods bargained and sold by the plaintiffs to the defendant." The paramount and vital principle of all agencies, continued Mr. Kettle " was überrima fides (superabounding good faith) and that without it the relation of principal and agent could not well exist. So sedulously was the principle guarded by the Courts that all departures from it were esteemed frauds 1 upon the confidence bestowed. The Court j had, over and over again, held, that it was the bounden duty cf agents to make full and fair disclosure to their principals of all facts and circumstances which came to their knowledge in any way calculated to influence their principals' conduct. The plaintiffs in the present case had. in his j opinion, forfeited their right to claim indemnity from the defendant, and had, by their conduct, entitled the defendant to repudiate the agency and everything done by the plaintiffs thereunder. The plaintiffs were nonsuited with costs.