The issue is whether Apparat Pty Ltd can take legal action against Dali. In this case, Apparat as a retailer who sells expensive imported sports car has engaged Dali an advertisement agency to advertise his product on a TV station. The agreement agreed to be last for two years. It is said that Apparat wants to cancelled that week’s advertisement slots after knowing that the TV station was planning to run a movie based around the search for the wealthy driver who carelessly knocks down children, killed them and callously drives off which is scheduled to be run on Sunday night. However, Dali neglects to do so. In the agreement, it is stated that Apparat would have the right at any time up to 4 days prior to the broadcasting date to cancel any particular booking. Hence, Apparat should phoned Dali to cancel that week’s slot before Tuesday since the movie was planned to run on Sunday night. The word used in the case given as ‘planning to run a movie’ shows that the TV station have not yet to confirmed whether to broadcast the movie on Sunday night or not. Hence, as long as Apparat follows the rules of the agreement which is to cancelled any booking prior up to 4 days before the advertisement will be broadcast, here therefore the booking can be cancelled. However, since Dali neglects to called off the advertisement on that week, Apparat has experienced losses with the declining sales plus with his reputation as a retailer has been damaged. Thus, Dali is said to breach the contract by neglecting Apparat’s request.
Dali as an agent for Apparat has breach his duty as an agent to his principal. The duty of an agent to his principal has been laid out on Section 164-178 of Contract Act 1950. Section 164 of Contract Act mentioned that - an agent is to obey the principal’s instruction and to act according to custom where instruction is not given. The agent i.e Dali must follow the principal’s instruction i.e Apparat which is to cancelled that week’s...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document