Goldberg v Jenkins (1889)

A partner borrowed money on behalf of the firm at over 60%

interest when the comparable rates were 6% - 10%

Held: such borrowing was beyond the usual way of the firm and
thus firm not bound

Reason: the partner would have been able to obtain loans within
rates of 6% -10% and looking at 60% - the person lending money on
those terms knows that the person borrowing is not conducting an
ordinary business transaction.






Hamlyn -v- John Houston & Co

Houston, a partner in the firm, obtained confidential information on the
plaintiff Hamlyn's business by bribing one of Hamlyn's employees. Held:
The firm was liable for the loss suffered by Hamlyn. If it was within the
scope of Houston's authority to obtain the information by legitimate
means, then for the purpose of vicarious liability it was within the scope
of his authority to obtain it by illegitimate means and the firm was liable
accordingly. This was on the broad 'risk' principle: the principal having
selected the agent, and being the person who will have the benefit of his
efforts if successful, it is not unjust he should bear the risk of the agent
'exceeding his authority in matters incidental to the doing of the acts the
performance of which has been delegated to him'.






















Goldberg v Jenkins (1889)

Rakan kongsi A meminjam wang bagi pihak firma itu lebih daripada
60% faedah apabila kadar setanding adalah 6% - 10%

Dipegang: pinjaman tersebut adalah 'luar biasa' cara firma dan oleh itu
firma tidak terikat

Sebab: rakan kongsi yang telah mampu untuk mendapatkan pinjaman
dalam kadar 6%-10% dan melihat 60% - orang pinjaman wang atas
terma-terma tersebut mengetahui bahawa orang yang meminjam sedang
menjalankan sesuatu urus niaga biasa perniagaan.


Hamlyn -v- John Houston & Co

Houston, a partner in the firm, obtained confidential information on the
plaintiff Hamlyn's business by bribing one of Hamlyn's employees. Held:
The firm was liable for the loss suffered by Hamlyn. If it was within the
scope of Houston's authority to obtain the information by legitimate
means, then for the purpose of vicarious liability it was within the scope
of his authority to obtain it by illegitimate means and the firm was liable
accordingly. This was on the broad 'risk' principle: the principal having
selected the agent, and being the person who will have the benefit of his
efforts if successful, it is not unjust he should bear the risk of the agent
'exceeding his authority in matters incidental to the doing of the acts the
performance of which has been delegated to him'.

Houston, seorang rakan dalam firma itu, diperolehi maklumat sulit
plaintif perniagaan di Hamlyn oleh bribing salah satu kakitangan
Hamlyn di. Diadakan: Firma adalah bertanggungjawab ke atas
kerugian yang dialami oleh Hamlyn. Jika ia berada di dalam skop
Houston kuasa untuk mendapatkan maklumat dengan cara yang sah,
kemudian bagi liabiliti Abrams ia berada di dalam skop kuasanya
untuk mendapatkan dengan cara nikah dan firma adalah
bertanggungan dengan sewajarnya. Ini adalah prinsip umum 'risiko':
Pengetua mempunyai dipilih ejen, dan sebagai orang yang akan
mendapat manfaat daripada usaha beliau jika berjaya, ia tidak adil
beliau perlu menanggung risiko yang ejen 'melebihi kuasanya dalam
perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan melakukan tindakan
prestasi yang telah diberikan kepadanya'.