UNIVERSITY OF PETROLEUM & ENERGY STUDIES

SCHOOL OF LAW
B.BA.LLB (HONS.), CORPORATE LAW

BATCH - I

SEMESTER - II

ACADEMIC YEAR: 2017-18

SESSION: JAN-MAY

CASE COMMENT
Under the Supervision of: PARUL MA’AM

NAME: HARSHITA SHARMA

SAP ID: 500060552
ROLL NUMBER: 30
Great Northern Railway vs. Swafflied, 1874 LR Ex. 132
INTRODUCTION
Agency of necessity means a person may becomes the agent of another without being
appointed as such under certain circumstances. It is created when a person is entrusted with
another’s property and it becomes necessary to do something to preserve that property
although he has no express authority to do so. This case extended the doctrine of agency of
necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been limited to
cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and emergency, where
it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is automatically authorised to act
to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a principal. According to S142 Contract
Act 1950, an agency may arise by necessity or in an emergency.

FACTS: Mr Swaffield sent his horse by railway to a station at Sandy. The horse arrived late
at night, and the railway company lodged the horse overnight for their own account at a
livery stable. Mr Swaffield failed to collect it on the following morning. The only basis on
which he was prepared to give any instructions about the fate of his horse was that the
railway company assumed all responsibility for storing and delivering it to him from the time
of its arrival at Sandy. After four months of this. They unilaterally delivered the horse to
defendant‘s farm and then sued him for the livery charges to date.

BACKGROUND
According to section142 Contract Act 1950, an agency may arise by necessity or in an
emergency. Agency by necessity is an agency created by an emergency from a circumstance
making it important or legitimate for the specialist to act without accepting the endorse or
approval of the essential, so as to anticipate mischief to the primary. It emerges when an
obligation is forced on a man to follow up for the benefit of another separated from
contract and to avoid hopeless damage. A person who saves the property of another or give
assistance to others for the same may be termed as agent of necessity. This occurs when
one party, the agent, is faced with an emergency which poses an imminent threat to the
interests or the property of another party, the Principal, and there is deficient time or
means for the specialist to look for the Principal's headings or expert in regards to the issue.
The teaching begins from two systematically unique kinds of cases. In a few, the activities of
the specialist may qua lifies him for go to the degree of influencing the Principal's lawful
relations with outsiders and in others, only qualifies him for a repayment or repayment
against the liabilities or costs that he/she may have caused while acting in the Principal's
advantage This can be said as the agent activity is to forestall misfortune to the primary with
deference of merchandise, for example, perishable products. Be that as it may, organization
of need does not emerge when products are simply sold due to burden. On account of Great
Northern Railway Co. versus Swaffield (1874) LR 9 Exch 132, the offended party railroad
organization had transported a steed to a station for the benefit of litigant. At the point when
the steed landed, there was no one to gather it. Along these lines, the offended party sent it to
a stable. Various months after the fact, the offended party paid the stabling charges and after
that straight to recoup what it had paid from the respondent. For this situation, the court was
held that the offended party's case succeeded despite the fact that he is associated with the
expansion of teaching of office of need to incorporate bearers of products via arrive. There
was an organization of need on the grounds that the offended party was found to have had no
real option except to orchestrate the best possible care of the steed. In the event that there is
no direness and afterward merchandise are sold in light of the fact that they are burden to the
specialist, at that point organization of need does not emerge. The specialist who offers the
merchandise might be obligated in tort for transformation in light of the fact that those
products are not has a place with the operator. For instance, in the event of Sachs v. Miklos
offer of furniture done by operator without criticalness occurred before it is sent to the goal or
an auto being sold by specialist on the off chance that Munro v. Willmott and Co. under a
condition which has no earnest thing happened. This decision extended the doctrine of
agency of necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been
limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and
emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is
automatically authorised to act to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a
principal.

HELD: . The court decided that GNRC had acted reasonably in putting the horse in the stable and
that Swaffield was liable for the charges which they had paid.

Analysis
1. The judgement passed by the court is justified according to the doctrine of agency of
necessity as the horse was sent by rail and when the horse arrived to the specified
place there was no individual to collect it as according to the doctrine of agency of
necessity the great northern railway was required to take care of the horse and bear
the expenses related to it. GNR was protecting the property in order to protect the
interest of the other party or protecting defendant’s property from eminent threat
without the authority of the principal as there was no certain instructions given by
swaffield to the great northern railway’s has to take action accordingly in order to
protect the horse
2. The great northern railways v. swaffield case extended the doctrine of agency of
necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by land. Previously it had been
limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in cases of accident and
emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an agent is
automatically authorised to act to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a
principal. In the cases before like great western railway co it was held that if the
agent does anything not authorised or he does not provide information to the principal
, the agent would be liable for the same

.In this case the legal issue was whether the emergency circumstances give GNRC the
authority to act on behalf of Swaffield and engage the services of the stable? The court
decided that GNRC had acted reasonably in putting the horse in the stable and that Swaffield
was liable for the charges which they had paid. As far as compensation was concerned there
is no decided case in English law in which an ordinary carrier of goods by land has been held
entitled to recover this sort of charge against the consignee or consignor of goods. The
precise point does not seem to have been subsequently decided, but several cases have since
arisen in which the nature and scope of the duty of the master, as agent of the merchant, have
been examined and defined.’ Then, after citing the cases, the judgment proceeds ‘It results
from them, that not merely is a power given, but a duty is cast on the master, in many cases
of accident and emergency, to act for the safety of the cargo in such manner as may be best
under the circumstances in which it may be placed; and that, as a correlative right, he is
entitled to charge its owner with the expenses properly incurred in so doing.’ That seems to
me to be a sound rule of law. That the duty is imposed upon the carrier. This decision
extended the doctrine of agency of necessity to cases concerning the carriage of goods by
land. Previously it had been limited to cases of carriage of goods by sea. It confirms that in
cases of accident and emergency, where it is impossible to get the principal’s instructions, an
agent is automatically authorised to act to make a contract with a third party on behalf of a
principal.

Conclusion
This choice expanded the convention of agency of need to cases concerning the carriage of
merchandise via arrive. Beforehand it had been restricted to instances of carriage of products
via ocean. It affirms that in instances of mischance and crisis, where it is difficult to get the
central's guidelines, a specialist is consequently approved to act to make an agreement with
an outsider in the interest of a primary.