This lecture is very straightforward and explains the concept of Agency in it's most basic form. I gained so much from this lecture and I have also put this knowledge into use in my own video on agency on my TH-cam channel.
Whilst several consent theorists have posited over the years that consent is the basis of agency, I love the fact that you took time to tie agency to authority. And yes, Lord Diplock in the case of Fridman & Lockeyer v Buckhurst Park held that a company can only act through its agent. This lecture is very helpful, and I have incorporated it in my video lecture on my channel, Ori David Consult.
This isn't the Law simplified .. It's just legislation simplified. In other words, the farcical behind the curtain of apparent complexity. Which is no less worthwhile, therefore Much Appreciated 😊
Yes, cases like Boardman v Phipps are one of those cases that expose the shortcomings with using the consent theory as the basis for agency. This is because in Agency by Estoppel, which confers ostensible authority on the agent,there is usually no consent between the agent and the principal. This is the same with Agency by Necessity which is a creation of law. Hence, ome cannot use consent as the basis of agency. This is in tandem with the views of the learned writer, Friedman. This is the reason I love the fact that he spoke so much about authority as against tying it strictly to consent. I have advanced similar arguments in my videos on agency on my TH-cam channel.
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
This lecture is very straightforward and explains the concept of Agency in it's most basic form. I gained so much from this lecture and I have also put this knowledge into use in my own video on agency on my TH-cam channel.
Whilst several consent theorists have posited over the years that consent is the basis of agency, I love the fact that you took time to tie agency to authority. And yes, Lord Diplock in the case of Fridman & Lockeyer v Buckhurst Park held that a company can only act through its agent. This lecture is very helpful, and I have incorporated it in my video lecture on my channel, Ori David Consult.
Am a LLB Student and I find this lecture very simple but helps a lot to understand the topic. Thank you for the help.
This is so easy and straightforward to understand
Hi Malachi. I’m glad these lessons have been helpful. Have a look at the comprehensive online law school: go.thelawsimplified.com/Partner
Thank you😊
Principal suing the agent to recover damages is called subrogation.
Great elucidation
This isn't the Law simplified .. It's just legislation simplified. In other words, the farcical behind the curtain of apparent complexity. Which is no less worthwhile, therefore Much Appreciated 😊
Hello. Thanks for this lecture. I have a quick question for you please. Is agency necessarily a consensual relationship?
not essentially. I am still trying to see if he is telling English Law. The English case of Boardman v Phipps says the consent is not important.
Yes, cases like Boardman v Phipps are one of those cases that expose the shortcomings with using the consent theory as the basis for agency. This is because in Agency by Estoppel, which confers ostensible authority on the agent,there is usually no consent between the agent and the principal. This is the same with Agency by Necessity which is a creation of law. Hence, ome cannot use consent as the basis of agency. This is in tandem with the views of the learned writer, Friedman. This is the reason I love the fact that he spoke so much about authority as against tying it strictly to consent. I have advanced similar arguments in my videos on agency on my TH-cam channel.
I love this
Well explained
thank you
Which sphere of law is the best to pursue?
Nice but please what are the forms of agency relationship?? 🙏
I kept thinking you said Asian instead of Agent aha
❤
I seen Commercial law- Introduction to Agency.
Strawmam??? 😂😂😂