1. Performance of the contract: If the agency is for a specific purpose, the agency terminates when the object is fulfilled. Kanavos was never allowed to present the terms of the offer that Brown had made as evidence. This offer was contained in a letter dated 16 July 1976 on bank letterhead which read as follows: “This letter is intended to confirm our discussion of your option to redeem the property in question. Instead of not exercising your option, we agree to pay you $40,000, which is a commission for our sale of the property in question, and additionally give you the opportunity to extend the sale price of that property for a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of our offer. Brown signed the letter as executive vice president. The basis for the exclusion was that the applicant had not established Brown`s power to enter into the agreement with Kanavos recalled in the letter of 16 July 1976. Either party may terminate the agency relationship even if it violates a contractual agreement between the parties. A customer is subject to an infringement action for the termination of the agency relationship if the agent`s status is part of an agreement supported by a counterparty and the termination of the agency relationship affects the agent`s rights. The dispute arose from Carey`s transaction to the premises and, according to the plaintiff`s evidence, from the employer`s instruction to receive money only before delivery. If the property is taken over by a major domain, the agency will be terminated. The most common termination of the agency in this category is by performance.
Performance is the achievement of the agency`s goal. For example, a broker who has been hired to sell a property sells the property. This service would terminate the agency. The Customer may be held liable for any illegal act of the Agent, but, except in accordance with certain legal provisions, it cannot be held criminally liable for the criminal acts of the Agents that were not initiated by the Customer. According to the doctrine of the superior defendant, a contracting authority is generally liable for the acts of an agent in the course of employment. A customer is generally not responsible for the actions of non-employees that cause property damage, although they are held liable for non-physical acts, such as . B misrepresentation. The Client shall not be liable for any tort by Independent Contractors, although the Client may be liable for any damage resulting from its inaction in situations where it was not permitted by law to delegate an obligation to act. Whenever an agent acts to promote the client`s business interests, the client will be held liable on behalf of the agent`s intentional offence. What constitutes the level of employment is not easy to determine; The modern trend is to hold a customer accountable for an agent`s behavior when it was foreseeable that the agent could act as he did. As a general rule, job titles are not an apparent authority. Brown`s status as executive vice president was therefore not a sign of obvious authority to change the agreements in which the bank was involved.
In this case, there were indications of the following variety of circumstances: the title of Executive Vice President of Brown; the location of his office vis-à-vis the President; his frequent contacts with the President; the long course of business and negotiations; encouraging the president in Kanavos to deal with Brown; Brown`s earlier amendment of the agreement on behalf of the bank on important issues, namely the price to be paid by the bank for the shares and the redemption price; the size of the bank (fourteen or fifteen branches in addition to the main office); the secondary and non-fundamental change in the terms of the agreement, which the Bank has now rejected, measured against the context of the overall operation; and Brown`s vast operating power. All this together would support a determination of apparent authority. If a senior manager is allowed to perform general management functions, as in this case, the public expects the company to be bound by commitments made on its behalf by those who claim to have the power and appear to have the power to accept convincingly. [Quote] Of course, this principle does not apply if, in the commercial context, the requirement of a certain authority is assumed, for example the sale of .B significant asset by a company or a transaction which, by its very nature, obliges the company to an obligation outside the scope of its ordinary business. The amending agreement of 16 July 1976 signed by Brown should have been admitted as evidence and a judgment should not have been rendered. The Southern District of Mississippi and the Fifth Circuit have ruled, applying Mississippi law, that sexual misconduct is outside the course and scope of employment. .