Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Private Law

Apparent authority: striking an appropriate balance?   

by Laura Macgregor, Professor of Scots Law, University of Edinburgh.

Introduction

Apparent authority is a key concept in agency law, acting to protect third parties negatively impacted by the activities of agents acting without authority. In relevant cases, the law seeks to strike a balance between the interests of the principal and those of the third party. London & Quadrant Housing Trust v Stokes, a decision by Mr Justice Martin Spencer, sitting in the English High Court, Queen’s Bench Division in March of this year ([2022] EWHC 1120 (QB)) is a case which nicely illustrates the difficulties of achieving such a balance.

Criteria for application of apparent authority

The third party must prove that the principal has made an erroneous representation of the agent’s authority, which representation has been relied on by the third party to his or her detriment (for more detailed analysis, see Laura J Macgregor, The Law of Agency in Scotland (2013) paras 11-01 – 11.26). The principal’s representation can be by words or conduct, and recent cases have extended the meaning of a representation significantly. Famously, in First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd ([1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 194) an agent was considered authorised to communicate information on behalf of his principal, which information could include the extent of his own authority. This comes very close to recognising the idea of a self-authorising agent.

1 Comment

Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill

by Andrew Steven, Professor of Property Law, University of Edinburgh.

The Moveable Transactions (Scotland) Bill was introduced to the Scottish Parliament on 25 May. The Scottish Government is therefore implementing the recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its three-volume Report on Moveable Transactions (Scot Law Com No 249, 2017). The Public Finance Minister, Tom Arthur MSP has described the Bill as “vital to helping businesses and the wider economy”.

The report was the culmination of a large project conducted by the Commission. Its Discussion Paper of 2011 (Scot Law Com DP No 151, 2011), on which Professor George Gretton, Lord President Reid Professor of Law Emeritus in Edinburgh Law School was lead Commissioner, was the subject of a symposium by the Edinburgh Centre for Private Law in October 2011. The papers presented were published in the May 2012 issue of the Edinburgh Law Review. Following this symposium and consultation, I was responsible as lead Commissioner for taking the project through to the 2017 Report.  It has a draft Bill annexed to it, on which the Scottish Government Bill is based.  The Bill is arguably the largest reform to Scottish moveable property law since the Sale of Goods Act 1893, although its successor, the Sale of Goods Act 1979, falls outwith scope because of its UK-wide application.

Leave a Comment

Unjustified Enrichment in Scots Law: Time for Consolidation, not Reappraisal?*

By Niall Whitty, Honorary Professor of Edinburgh Law School

1. 1961-1990. I must confess I have been fascinated by the Scots law of unjustified enrichment for over 60 years. My first contact with it occurred in autumn 1961 – in my first year at Edinburgh University Law Faculty.[1]

At that time, the English law of restitution, with its imputed contract theory of quasi-contract[2] and its Coronation cases,[3] (rejecting restitution after frustration of contract) was held up to students in the Civil Law class as evidence that the English law of obligations, while rich in detail, was poor in principle. By contrast, Scots enrichment law, with its obediential obligation theory and civilian Cantiere San Rocco case,[4] was said to be much superior as indeed in some respects it plainly was. In the next three decades, however, the condition and status of unjust enrichment in English law was completely transformed,[5] while the Scots law, starved of research and the stimulus of comparative law, tended to stagnate and sometimes took wrong turnings.[6] The reason was not so much complacency as the fact that the academic branch of the Scottish legal profession, though growing, was still relatively small and over-stretched.[7]  Probably more has been written on our enrichment law in the past 30 years than in the previous 300 years.

Leave a Comment

Electronic trade documents in Scots law

By Andrew Steven, Professor of Property Law, University of Edinburgh

Economic importance

In 2021 international trade was worth approximately £1.266 trillion to the UK. The moving of goods across borders still heavily relies on paper documents and practices which developed centuries ago. A trade finance transaction typically involves 20 entities and between 10 and 20 paper documents, totalling over 100 pages. Recent technological developments have enabled the use of secure forms of electronic documents. But the law requires to catch up.

Leave a Comment

The Covid Pandemic 2020-2022 and Scottish Contract Law

By Hector MacQueen, Emeritus Professor of Private Law, University of Edinburgh

If one looks back at previous pandemics, such as the so-called “Spanish influenza” of 1918-19, through the lens of the law reports, the most striking finding is an almost complete lack of cases in Scotland (or elsewhere in the United Kingdom), despite the lack of any legislative response at all from a central government yet to assume much responsibility for public health. The only possible Scottish case about Spanish influenza thrown up by a Westlaw search for “influenza” between 1918 and 1925 was McKeating v Frame 1921 SC 382, which concerned an employer’s liability for the death of a female farm servant aged 17 who collapsed with double pneumonia and influenza while at work in March 1919 whereupon the employer sent her without any support to her mother’s home several miles away, travelling on foot and by bus; she died two days later. The first instance decision that the employer had no liability in these circumstances was fortunately over-turned by the Second Division.

Comments closed
css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel