2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
The Supplier’s claims against MISC for unpaid bunker stems failed as the Supplier could not show that the party it contracted with (MAL) was acting as MISC’s agent.
The Supplier’s arguments based on actual authority, apparent authority, and estoppel were each rejected on the evidence. The argument that one has a general ‘duty to speak’ to debunk dispel (mis)representations by a purported agent as to its authority was rejected, absent a pre-existing relationship or dealings.
This note has been contributed by Justin Gan Boon Eng, LLB (Hons) NUS, Advocate & Solicitor, Singapore (non-practising); Solicitor, Hong Kong
When in doubt (and before allowing large credit balances to accrue), perhaps the best course of action would be to check direct with the supposed principal counter-party – a simple call may not only illuminate the situation, but also save the cost of extensive factual evidence and discovery common in cases where an agency relationship is alleged and a number of intermediaries are in the picture.
Fn.1 Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd, [1964] 2 QB 480.
