Johnson versus Birkett (an agency law case)
Agency law case代写 Subject to this case, Johnson is the principal while Birkett is the agent.Thus, Birkett was acting by implication···
Subject to this case, Johnson is the principal while Birkett is the agent. Agency law case代写
Thus, Birkett was acting by implication, as the stockbroker investment consultant to Johnson. Therefore, he was subject to the agency duties and acting for the principal.
When Johnson gave instruction to Birkett to buy stock B, Birkett cautioned him on the risk thereof. Agency law case代写
But he was bound to Johnson directives which were insisted to be followed. It was Birkett duty as the agent to caution Johnson on the likely risk in buying stock B whose prices had risen and was anticipated to fall in future. Therefore, Birkett was not liable for any loss that might have occurred as a result of the decline in share prices, simply because he acted his role of providing investment advice to Johnson. Earlier on, Birkett had provided his advice to Johnson which he never followed; meaning Johnson is entitled to his own investment decisions after seeking advice from Birkett.
However Agency law case代写
Birkett had a duty to notify his principal of any decision or action taken during the execution of the agency. When Birkett failed to notify Johnson of his intention to transfer some of his shares to him at the current market price, it was a breach of agency duty to disclose all decisions made in the agency execution. Therefore, Birkett is only liable to the extent of the shares he transferred to Johnson without his knowledge while the rest are on Johnson. In this case, Birkett will pay for the loss of the shares transferred without disclosure to Johnson. The rest of the shares were bought in accordance with the directives from Johnson, therefore that loss rests on him.