Secretarial practice

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 1828236004

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-249926

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Secretarial practice

Edition:: fourth edition

Place of publication:: Cambridge

Publisher:: W. Heffer & Sons Ltd

Year of publication:: 1930

Scope:: viii, 987 Seiten

Digitisation:: 2022

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

Chapter

Document type:: Monograph

Structure type:: Chapter

Title:: Chapter XXI. Powers of attorney

Collection:: Economics Books

276 SECRETARIAL PRACTICE Application of Local Laws. Alternative Interpre- tations. Attorney’s Signature. unaware of the usages of a market, engages a broker on that market, he authorises that broker to contract on the footing of such usages as are reasonable and do not alter the nature of the contract [Perry v. Barnett (1885), 15 Q.B.D. 388]. The general rule of law is that the authority of the agent, in the absence of evidence of a contrary intention, is to be determined according to the law of the country where the agency was created. But the Court will do its best to as- certain the intention of the grantor; for a power of attorney as was stated by Lord Lindley in Chatenay v. Brazilian Telegraph Company (1891), 1 Q.B. 79, is ‘a one-sided instru- ment, an instrument which expresses the meaning of the person who makes it, but is not in any sense a contract.’ The judgments in this case show that if a power of attorney is granted abroad, and even though it is written in a foreign language and drafted in a foreign form, then, when once it is ascertained from the evidence of competent translators and experts that it is the intention of the grantor that it should be acted upon in England, the extent of the authority, so far as transactions in England are concerned, must be determined by English law. Where a power admits of two different interpretations, the attorney is within his right to adopt consistently the interpretation which to him seems best; “if a principal gives anorder to an agent in such uncertain terms as to besusceptible of two different meanings, and the agent bona fide adopts one of them and acts upon it, it is not competent for the principal to repudiate the act as unauthorized because he meant the order to be read in the other sense of which it is equally capable’ [Ireland v. Livingstone (1872), 5 H.L. 395, at p. 416]. Where, however, there is a choice between a definite and an indefinite construction of the instrument, the attorney is bound to act upon the definite construction [Bertram Vv. Godfray (1830), T Knapp, 381]. The Law of Property Act 1925, s. 123, declares that ‘the donee of a power of attorney may, if he thinks fit, execute or do any assurance, instrument, or thing in and with his own name and signature and under his own seal, where sealing is required, by the authority of the donor of the power; and every assurance, instrument or thing so executed and done shall be as effectual in law, to all intents, as if it had been executed or done by the donee of the power in the name and with the signature and seal of the donor thereof.’ The words ‘by the authority of the donor of the power’ have led to the contention that the section can only apply to an instrument in which the principal has expressly stated

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Secretarial practice

Monograph

Chapter

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

Chapter

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation