Adamson v Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66
✅ Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66
🔹 1. Case Facts
Parties:
Adamson – the plaintiff, an auctioneer.
Jarvis – the defendant, the principal who instructed Adamson.
Background:
Jarvis, the defendant, instructed Adamson, an auctioneer, to sell certain livestock (cattle).
Adamson sold the cattle in good faith based on Jarvis's instructions.
Later, it turned out that Jarvis was not the lawful owner of the cattle, and the true owner sued Adamson for wrongful sale (conversion).
Adamson had to pay damages to the real owner.
Adamson then sued Jarvis to recover the losses and damages he incurred due to acting on Jarvis’s instructions.
🔹 2. Legal Issue
Can an agent (Adamson) who acts on the authority of a principal (Jarvis) and suffers a loss due to lack of legal title or misrepresentation by the principal, recover damages from the principal?
🔹 3. Judgment
The Court held in favor of Adamson (the agent).
Principle laid down:
If an agent acts in good faith on the instructions of a principal, and suffers a loss because the principal had no authority or legal right, the agent is entitled to be indemnified by the principal.
Jarvis was held liable to indemnify Adamson for the loss suffered.
🔹 4. Legal Principle: Right to Indemnity
The case established a key principle in the law of agency:
“An agent acting on behalf of a principal is entitled to be indemnified against losses suffered in the lawful execution of authority given by the principal.”
This is now codified under Section 222 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which states:
"The employer of an agent is bound to indemnify him against the consequences of all lawful acts done by such agent in exercise of the authority conferred upon him."
🔹 5. Key Takeaways
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Relationship | Principal and agent |
| Agent’s role | Acted in good faith under principal’s instructions |
| Principal’s liability | Must indemnify agent for loss resulting from authorized lawful acts |
| Misrepresentation by principal | Principal liable if agent suffers due to false authority |
| Basis of claim | Implied indemnity |
🔹 6. Related Case Law
a) Indian Context: Pannalal Jankidas v. Mohanlal (1951)
The Supreme Court of India recognized the right of indemnity under Sections 222 and 223 of the Contract Act.
Reiterated that agents are protected when they act lawfully under authority.
b) Osman Jamal & Sons Ltd. v. Gopal Purshottam (1928)
It was held that if an agent is held liable due to false representation of authority by the principal, the principal must compensate.
🔹 7. Significance of the Case
This case is a cornerstone in agency law for the doctrine of implied indemnity.
It provides legal security to agents who may act without knowing the full legal ownership or facts.
Encourages agents to act confidently within the scope of their authority, knowing that they will be protected if they act in good faith.
🔹 8. Conclusion
Adamson v. Jarvis (1827) is a classic example of how the law protects an agent from bearing personal loss for actions taken on the authority of a principal. It established the rule that an agent acting lawfully under instructions is entitled to be indemnified if that act leads to any legal or financial consequences.
RELATED Blog
0 comments