The High Court has clarified when a purchase made through another person can legally bind the person who authorised the transaction, holding that an authorised agent can create a binding contract on behalf of the person who gave them authority.

🇰🇪 Breaking It Down

An agreement, according to the high court, can bind a person even where they were not physically present or did not personally negotiate with the other party, provided the person acting on their behalf had authority to enter into the transaction.

In determining whether such a relationship exists, the Court considers whether the person acted with the principal's authority, whether the transaction fell within that authority and whether the third party accepted and acted on the agreement.

The clarification was made in a case involving the purchase of an engine for a lorry, where the buyer had asked a relative to find and purchase a suitable replacement on her behalf.

📌 What You Need to Know

The relative was given a copy of the lorry's logbook and instructions on the type of engine required. He then worked with mechanics to identify an engine, which was purchased for Ksh920,000 and installed in the vehicle.

The lorry later developed problems, prompting the buyer to return the engine and seek a refund of the purchase price. The seller disputed the claim, arguing that the engine had been selected and tested by mechanics and that there had been no direct contract with the buyer.

The dispute eventually reached the High Court after the Small Claims Court dismissed the buyer's claim but ordered that the engine be sold and the Ksh920,000 refunded.

Justice Patricia Gichohi found that the relative had acted within the authority given to him by the buyer and that the seller had accepted payment and supplied the engine. The Court therefore held that a contractual relationship had been established between the buyer and seller.

The Judge relied on the agency principle that “he who does anything through another, does it himself,” meaning that acts carried out by an authorised agent are treated in law as acts of the person who gave the authority.

The Court, however, distinguished the existence of a contract from whether the seller was responsible for the engine's subsequent problems. It found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the replacement engine was defective or unsuitable for its intended purpose.

📰 Source: Kenyans.co.ke