Watteau v Fenwick

Content sourced from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

Watteau v Fenwick (1893) is an English case about a principal’s liability for an agent’s actions when the principal is undisclosed.

Facts
- Watteau supplied cigars and bovril to the Victoria, a beer house in Middlesbrough run by a man named Humble.
- In 1888, Humble transferred his interest to Fenwick and Company, but he stayed on as manager and continued to run the business as before.
- The sign bore Humble’s name and the license was in his name.
- Watteau did not know Fenwick was involved, and Fenwick had given Humble no authority to act for them.
- When Watteau wasn’t paid £25, he sued Fenwick.

Lower court
- The County Court said Fenwick was liable because Humble had been held out as having general authority.

Higher court
- The Queen’s Bench, led by Lord Coleridge, dismissed Fenwick’s appeal.
- The court held that once a defendant is established as the principal, ordinary rules of principal–agent apply, even if the third party doesn’t know about the principal.
- The principal is liable for the agent’s acts if those acts are normally within what an agent of that kind would do, even if the agent acted beyond their actual authority.
- The court likened this to a dormant partner, who would be liable for acts within the ordinary authority of the other partner.