Quinn v CC Automotive Group Ltd (t/a Carcraft)

Quinn v CC Automotive Group Ltd (t/a Carcraft)

Khan had apparent authority to sell the Red Jaguar and related matters; Quinn honestly believed and relied on that authority. There was no basis for importing an 'inquiry' test or applying an objective reasonableness standard. The transaction was within the class of acts a car salesman is usually authorised to do. Therefore, Carcraft is vicariously liable for Khan's deceit and must bear the loss.

Parties
Appellant/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Paul Quinn; Respondent/1st Part 20 Defendant: CC Automotive Group Limited t/a Carcraft; 2nd Part 20 Defendant: Abeed Khan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Apparent Authority, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Loss Allocation, Employer's Liability for Employee's Fraud
Agency Law Tort Law Contract Law Vicarious Liability Apparent Authority Fraudulent Misrepresentation Loss Allocation Employer's Liability for Employee's Fraud

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Quinn

Appellant/defendant/part 20 Claimant

CC Automotive Group Limited t/a Carcraft

Respondent/1st Part 20 Defendant

Abeed Khan

2nd Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer (Carcraft) is vicariously liable for the fraudulent acts of its employee (Khan) under the doctrine of apparent authority
  2. 2 Whether the claimant (Quinn) was put on inquiry such that he cannot rely on the employee's apparent authority

Ratio Decidendi

Khan had apparent authority to sell the Red Jaguar and related matters; Quinn honestly believed and relied on that authority. There was no basis for importing an 'inquiry' test or applying an objective reasonableness standard. The transaction was within the class of acts a car salesman is usually authorised to do. Therefore, Carcraft is vicariously liable for Khan's deceit and must bear the loss.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant (Quinn) against the respondent (Carcraft)
  • Carcraft to bear the loss occasioned by Khan's deceit