UK Commercial Law Scenarios and Questions

An implied agency under the agency by estoppel was created between Tom and Jerry since it was a verbal appointment. 1
An agency by estoppel states that whereas an agency can in general arise by the will of the principal, he may nevertheless so conduct himself leading another to believe that someone is his agent and he is then estopped from denying this fact. For instant, if a person is allows another to order goods on his behalf and always pays for them, then he will be estopped from denying the authority to a third person who relied on the appearance. (Emerson, 2003)
This agency by estoppel is as effective as an agency intentionally created. The rule of estoppel is based on the principle of holding out and is not confined to contracts of employment only. (Jertz and Miller, 2004)
Since there existed an agency relationship between Tom and Jerry, Tom need to be advised that Jerry might bring a case against him for refusing to accept the Land Rover he bought on his behalf knowing very well that Tom would be very happy with the purchase. Since Jerry was engaged to act as an agent by Tom (principal) whereby he ordered and paid for animal feed on his behalf we can say that Tom acted for undisclosed principal. When he was ordering the animal feed for Tom, he would not have disclosed that he was an agent engaged by Tom since they would not have sold the animal feeds for them because Tom had been banned from their premises.
Tom on the other hand needs to be aware that, since his goat had ran amok causing a lot damages to the animal feeds supplier, a case can be brought against him. The animal feed supplier may sue him for trespass by cattle under the law of tort.
A trespass by cattle of a person we usually treated as if he has committed it himself. If a man’s cattle, poultry, sheep or goats trespass on another’s land, the owner of such animals becomes liable for trespass and must pay damages for the damages caused to the plaintiff’s crops or property. If the cattle trespassed without causing any damage, the owner is still liable to pay damages because trespass is actionable per se. 4
A relevant case studied under trespass by cattle is that of:-
Anderson v. Buckton of 1815
In this case, the defendant’s cattle affected by contagious disease
trespassed on an adjoining pasture and infected the plaintiff’s
cattle. It was held that the defendant was liable for damage arising
from the spread