I am not sure where to start. I have a hypothetical question about contract law. Situation is like this.
Johnson instructs Kepler Wessels to purchase a brand-new Maîtres du Temps Chapter One from Thomas Muller for no more than $400k and because he wishes to remain anonymous, Johnson asks Kepler not to disclose his identity to Thomas Muller. In fact, Kepler does not even disclose to Thomas Muller that he is acting for another party in his negotiations with him.
Thomas Muller refuses to sell for less than $550k and Kepler, realising the potential value of the jewellery, agrees to pay $550k believing that Johnson will consent to that price on learning of the circumstances.
In fact, Johnson refuses to pay for the jewellery. Explain, with reasons, whether Thomas Muller can enforce the contract against Johnson (upon learning of his identity)
Here it is clear Johnson is an undisclosed principal. Common law doctrine on undisclosed principals confers rights and imposes liabilities on the undisclosed principal, notwithstanding that he is not made a party to the relevant contract. This doctrine is an exception to the general rule that only a party to a contract may sue and be sued thereon.
Johnson instructs Kepler Wessels to purchase a brand-new Maîtres du Temps Chapter One from Thomas Muller for no more than $400k and because he wishes to remain anonymous, Johnson asks Kepler not to disclose his identity to Thomas Muller. In fact, Kepler does not even disclose to Thomas Muller that he is acting for another party in his negotiations with him.
Thomas Muller refuses to sell for less than $550k and Kepler, realising the potential value of the jewellery, agrees to pay $550k believing that Johnson will consent to that price on learning of the circumstances.
In fact, Johnson refuses to pay for the jewellery. Explain, with reasons, whether Thomas Muller can enforce the contract against Johnson (upon learning of his identity)
Here it is clear Johnson is an undisclosed principal. Common law doctrine on undisclosed principals confers rights and imposes liabilities on the undisclosed principal, notwithstanding that he is not made a party to the relevant contract. This doctrine is an exception to the general rule that only a party to a contract may sue and be sued thereon.
- Doctrine of undisclosed principal allows third party, where agency not
Disclosed, to sue the agent, or principal – but not both.
In the above senario the agent (Kepler) was acting outside his authority by offering $550k , where he was clearly instructed to buy for no more than $400k. Is this not a tortious act?