Defendant Strong was a partner in a firm with defendant Houston, who handled all of the firm's business.
It was part of the firm's business to obtain information about contracts and tenders made with brewers and buyers of grains by competing firms.
Houston, acting within the scope of his authority, attempted to obtain information by bribing the plaintiff's clerk, a competitor, to access documents belonging to the plaintiff. He even had possession of one of the plaintiff's books for a period of time.
ISSUE
Whether the defendant firm is liable for the actions of Houston in bribing the plaintiff's clerk to obtain information, considering that the firm had delegated its business to Houston and the illegitimate means used by him.
JUDGEMENT
The court held that the defendant firm is liable for the actions of Houston.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
It was established that a principal may be liable for the actions of its agent if committed within the general scope of the agent's authority, even if the actions are illegal.
The court applied the test of whether it was within Houston's authority to obtain the information by legitimate means. Since it was, the firm is liable for his actions.
The court cited the Partnership Act, 1890, and previous decisions that a principal is liable for the wrongful acts of its agent if committed within the scope of employment.
Justice Metthew clarified that as long as Houston's actions were within the scope of his authority, the firm is responsible for those actions, regardless of their legality.
COMMENTARIES RATIO
Where the principal delegates the performance of a certain class of acts to the agent, it is not unjust that he should bear the risk of the agent exceeding his authority in matters incidental to the doing of the acts performance of which has been delegated to him.