Kofi was appointed by Bisi as a general agent to manage her textile distribution business. Without Bisi's express authority or trade custom justification, Kofi delegated the entire purchasing duty to a third party, Musa. Musa negligently purchased substandard textiles, causing severe financial losses for Bisi. Under the Law of Agency, which of the following statements correctly describes the legal position and liabilities of the parties?
- Kofi breached the duty not to delegate authority ('delegatus non potest delegare'), making Kofi personally liable to Bisi while no privity of contract exists between Bisi and Musa.Answer
- BMusa is directly liable to Bisi for negligence because appointing a sub-agent automatically transfers all legal obligations and rights of the principal to the sub-agent.
- CThe agency agreement between Bisi and Kofi is automatically terminated by operation of law due to contract frustration caused by Musa's breach.
- DKofi exercised a legitimate agent's right of indemnity, thereby relieving both Kofi and Musa from any financial liability to Bisi.
Answer
Kofi breached the fundamental agent duty 'delegatus non potest delegare' (a delegated authority cannot be sub-delegated), making Kofi personally liable to Bisi for the resulting losses, with no direct privity of contract existing between Bisi and Musa.
Under the Law of Agency, the maxim 'delegatus non potest delegare' dictates that an agent cannot delegate authority to another person without express consent, implied consent, trade custom, or emergency necessity. Because Kofi sub-delegated his purchasing duties without authority, he committed a breach of duty. Consequently, Kofi is personally liable to Bisi for the losses incurred. Furthermore, since Bisi did not authorize Musa's appointment, no privity of contract exists between Bisi and Musa.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Delegatus non potest delegare (Duty of an Agent not to Delegate)
Estimated Time:2m 0s