Comparing Kennedy V Glass: Kennedy Vs. Glass

Agency refers to a consensual bilateral agreement whereby one party, the principal authorizes another, the agent, to exercise decisions on his behalf, usually with a third party involved. In this particular case Duncan is deemed to be the principal, Fred the agent and the plumber the third party. There are many rules when it comes to the creation of an agency contract, mainly the principal must be in existence during time of agreement and he must also know and authorize the agreement. If an agent makes a decision on behalf of a principal who is unaware of the decision this can still be seen as an agency contract through ratification, “to ratify”(to adopt) [Blackburn, G.B, 2011. Business Law in Scotland . 2nd ed. Alva Street, Edinburgh: Thomas
On one occasion, Kennedy introduced Glass to a company that had machinery and plant for sale. Glass entered into a contract with the company to buy it - but failed to carry out the contract. Kennedy said there had been an arrangement that he would get £250.00 commission. Glass said it was £50, and only if the contract was carried out. Held, Kennedy was entitled to £50 on a quantum merit basis he had taken considerable time and trouble on Glass's behalf. Fred had taken considerable amount of time to make sure that the pipe was fixed and that he has replaced the door that he was forced to take down Fred is not asking for compensation for the door but should not be liable for paying the
Mr. Swaffield sent his horse by railway to a station at Sandy. The horse arrived late at night, and the railway company lodged the horse overnight for their own account at a livery stable. Mr. Swaffield failed to collect it on the following morning. The only basis on which he was prepared to give any instructions about the fate of his horse was that the railway company assumed all responsibility for storing and delivering it to him from the time of its arrival at Sandy. Held, Kelly CB, concurring treated the principle as applying because it was necessary for the railway company to incur the expenditure. ‘They had no choice unless they would leave the horse at the station or in the high road to his own danger and the danger of other people (Great Northern Railway Co -v- Swaffield).’ Using this example it was necessary for Fred to rectify the burst pipe issue as it may have an adverse effect on the electrical systems, potentially causing power outages and damaging the infrastructure of the apartment and should not be liable for the cost of fixing the pipe. There are many differences that can be drawn from these two cases, one of which being the crucial fact that Duncan neglected to provide Fred with legitimate contact details leaving Fred with no other option but to proceed to take drastic action to prevent any further damages that may have occurred as a result of leaving the issues at