Skip to main content

Types of Agents in contract of agency

 Types of Agents in contract of agency

General agent

The general agent has the authority to carry out a wide range of transactions in the name and on behalf of the principle, and this authority is delegated to him by the principal. The overall agent is also the business's manager, or he or she might have a variety of limited but identical present roles, such as that of an agent or an insurance agent who is authorised to check in customers for the home office. However, in either situation, the overall agent has authority to modify the principal's legal relationships with third parties. a general agent with the capacity to operate in any manner required by the principal's business is recruited from among the several United Nations agencies In order to limit the overall agent's power, the principal should clearly out the limits; nevertheless, the principle is also responsible for any activities performed by the agent that are outside of his or her scope of competence.

Co-Agent

a person who has been appointed by the agent with the express or implicit authority of the principal is referred to as a co-agent. In accordance with Section 194 of the Indian Contract Act, the appointment of a co-agent is permitted. It is under the authority of the principle and acts as an agent on behalf of the principal. Between the principal and the substituted agent, there is a private contract in place. It is in charge of the principal's affairs. The Agent is not liable for the conduct of the co-agent unless they are intentional.

Broker

Sales representatives are individuals or companies who are hired by others to plan and coordinate sales or negotiate contracts in exchange for a commission.

A broker's role is to facilitate the arrangement of contracts for property in which he or she has no personal stake, possession, or responsibility. An middleman or negotiator in the contracting of any form of transaction, the broker acts as an agent for parties who seek to purchase or sell stocks, bonds or other types of securities, real or personal property, agricultural commodities, or financial services. The rules governing agency are typically applicable to the vast majority of transactions involving brokers. The customer is referred to as the principle, while the broker is referred to as the client's representative. The abilities of an agent are often greater than those of a broker. A key distinction between an agent and a broker is that a broker serves as a middleman between the two parties. An agent for both parties is appointed when a broker arranges a purchase or transaction.

Del Credre is an acronym that stands for "Del Credre is an acronym that stands for

When a buyer fails to pay his or her debts on time, a del credere agency assures the buyer's creditworthiness and takes the risk posed to the seller. Del credere literally translates as "believe" in Italian. A del credere agency is a type of principal-agent relationship in which the agent acts not only as a salesperson or broker for the principal, but also as a guarantor of credit extended to the buyer. A del credere agent is only liable to pay the principal if the buyer defaults on payment, and is not liable for any other issues that may arise between the buyer and seller during the transaction.


Agent of Commissions (Agent of Commissions (Agent of Commissions))

foreign agent that receives a commission on the sales that they create on behalf of their clients It is the Agent's responsibility to make items available to potential customers in a certain region, which is often a nation, precisely in compliance with the selling terms specified by the Principal. There is no employment connection between the Agent and the Principal, and their relationship is only one of business transactional nature. In this regard, upon the conclusion of this agreement, the Agent shall be ineligible for any kind of remuneration. Relations between the commercial agent and his clients in international commerce are controlled by international trade law.

Factor

Those engaged by others to sell or acquire products, who are entrusted with ownership of those commodities, and who are rewarded by a commission or a fixed wage are known as salespeople. A factor is a sort of agent who sells products that are owned by another person, known as a principle, on their behalf. The factor participates in the sale of items on a more regular basis than the purchasing of merchandise. A factor differs from a simple agent in that a factor is required to have custody of the principal's property, whereas an agent is not required to do so. A contract establishes the connection between the factor and the principal. Both parties are expected to follow the provisions of the agreement to the letter and spirit of the law. The contract can be terminated by either the factor or the principal, or it can be terminated by operation of law.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more