Introduction
Agency refers to the law that concerns itself with quasi-contractual or contractual relationships between not less than two parties. In the relationship, one of the persons usually has legal authority or right to act for another. EEP states that these relationships arise from implication or explicit appointment. He adds that an agency relationship is most of the time created by the existence of a contract. Moreover legally, agency law is mostly applicable within contractual or commercial dealings.
An agent is described as that person who has been given the authority to act on behalf of another individual. It is the person he acts on behalf of that is referred to as the principal. In this case, Hassan would have been the agent while Mariska became the principal. It is important to note at this point that we see no explicit appointment of Hassan to conduct transactions on behalf of Mariska and neither do we see any binding contract in place creating the impression that there is no principal-agent relationship existent.
Discussion
Since the agent usually has authority that has been granted to him by the individual perceived as the principal, then he can unarguably create or develop a legal relationship between a third-party and the principal 2.
Further explained, the agent can for instance order goods or services from a third party on behalf of the principal as long as the purchase is within the agent’s scope or range of authority. In such a case, therefore, the principal automatically must pay for the purchased goods as law, through the agent, binds him to the contract initiated by the third party. The agent is thus given the authority to specifically carry out certain duties in place of the principal. The principal will relay to the agent what he wants to see accomplished and the agent is thus left with the responsibility of bringing about the results he has been tasked to achieve.
Irrespective of how competent Hassan was to handle Mariska’s emergency, the law does not qualify him as an agent and thus makes him ineligible to receive compensation or reimbursement for his good deeds or actions on behalf of Mariska. The law fails to grant Hassan the explicit right to have represented the interests of Mariska through dealings with a third party. There was in essence no contract between them that gave Hassan the authority to conduct business for Mariska and thus there is nothing that could be used to support his arguments to hold Mariska responsible for the debts that accrued from his transactions with the third party.
Types of agency
The types of agency in place also do nothing but invalidate Hassan’s arguments. For instance, the universal agency provides the agent with a broad authority to act in place of the principal. In this case, there is no indication of any authority having been given to Hassan and it is clear that he acted entirely on his instinct and desire to do well. The general agency on the other hand involves limitations of an agent’s authority to only specific types of assignments 3. From the case, no evidence exists to show that Hassan had been granted authority to respond to specific emergencies in the absence of Mariska. Though it was a good thing for Hassan to assist, the law fails to recognize the basis for his actions.
Conclusion
From the study of the case, it can be affirmatively stated that there was no agency existing between the two conflicting parties. It is thus entirely upon Mariska to decide, based on his moral standing and ethical inclination, whether he needs to repay Hassan for his kindness or not. Since the court will use the discussed rationale to formulate their final decision, Hassan’s arguments will be void.
There exists no persuasive authority in this case to necessitate Hassan’s compensation other than that derived from societal ethics. Law aside, it would be imperative for Mariska to act ethically and go ahead to reimburse the funds that had been used to cater for the welfare of the pets in the care home since there is always the next time. The case presents a variety of dissenting opinions. However, everyone’s judgment is right depending on how one looks at the situation.
Bibliography
Edward Elgar Publishing. Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law.USA: Elgar Publishing, 2006.