[1934] EACA 25

[1934] EACA 25

The court held that section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, creates only a rebuttable presumption of personal liability for agents contracting on behalf of foreign principals. This presumption can be displaced by evidence of a contrary intention, as shown by the contract's terms or the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the contract and correspondence demonstrated that A. Thomsen acted merely as a transmitter of the offer and acceptance between the plaintiff and the foreign principal, A. Eber and Sohn. The contract was made in the name of the foreign principal, and Thomsen's role was limited to communication, not agency with authority to bind himself personally. Therefore, the...

Citation
[1934] EACA 25
Parties
Plaintiff: Alibhai Adamji Dar; Defendant: A. Thomsen; Defendant: A. Eber and Sohn
Court
East African Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Judgment Date
1 January 1934
Case Number
C.C. 97/1932 (Msa.).
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment
Outcome
Claim against defendant Thomsen dismissed with costs; judgment entered against A. Eber and Sohn with costs and inquiry into damages ordered.
Judges
Webb, J
Legal Topics
Principal and Agent Liability, Foreign Principal Contracts, Rebuttable Presumption, Personal Liability of Agent
Source Language
English
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Principal and Agent Liability Foreign Principal Contracts Rebuttable Presumption Personal Liability of Agent

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 2 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alibhai Adamji Dar

Plaintiff

A. Thomsen

Defendant

A. Eber and Sohn

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an agent contracting for a foreign principal is personally liable under section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
  2. 2 Whether the presumption of personal liability of the agent is rebuttable by the terms of the contract or surrounding circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant Thomsen acted as an agent or merely as a transmitter of an offer.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, creates only a rebuttable presumption of personal liability for agents contracting on behalf of foreign principals. This presumption can be displaced by evidence of a contrary intention, as shown by the contract's terms or the surrounding circumstances. In this case, the contract and correspondence demonstrated that A. Thomsen acted merely as a transmitter of the offer and acceptance between the plaintiff and the foreign principal, A. Eber and Sohn. The contract was made in the name of the foreign principal, and Thomsen's role was limited to communication, not agency with authority to bind himself personally. Therefore, the...

Court Disposition

Claim against defendant Thomsen dismissed with costs; judgment entered against A. Eber and Sohn with costs and inquiry into damages ordered.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action against A. Thomsen is dismissed with costs.
  • Judgment is entered against A. Eber and Sohn with costs.