In a cafe o f
difpute between
an
agent and
conftituent
refpe&ing the
purchafe o f a
fpecific flave,
the declaration
o f the
agent muft be
credited.
An agent,
avowing his
-commiflion,
.cannot afterwards
retraft,
unlefs the alleged
conftituent
deny the
commiflion.
A G E N C Y , B o o k X X I I I .
him for his conjhtuent. It is otherwife where he has already received
the purchafe-money, becaufe then he is confidered as titru fieeoi it,
and his aflertion is credited, as it tends to procure him a releafement
from his truft:— whereas, in the other cafe, he cannot be confidered
as a trufiee, fince .the purchafe-money is not in his pofleffion.
I f a perfon defire his agent to purchafe for him a fpecific Have, and
they afterwards difagree during the life-time .of the Have,' (the conftituent
aflerting that the agent had purchafed him for himfelf, and the
agent declaring that he had purchafed him for his conftituent,) in this
cafe it is univerfally agreed that, whether the conftituent may have
delivered to him the price or not, the aflertion of the agent muft be
credited; becaufe the agent gives information of his performance of an
act which he is at that moment capable of carrying fully into execution;
and alfo, becaufe he is not in this, cafe liable to any fufpicion,
finee an agent for the purchafe of a fpecific tbingcannot purchafe that
thing for himfelf in the abfence of his .conftituent, for the reafons already
explained; in oppofition to the cafe of an indefinite thing, (according
to the dodtrine of Haneefa, zs exhibited above.)
If one perfon fay to another “ fell to me this Have in behalf
“ of Omar, who is my conftituent;” and the Have be accordingly
fold, and the agent afterwards deny tfiat he had been authorifed
to make the purchafe by Omar, and Omar then appear, and aflert
■ that he had -defired the faid agent to purchafe the faid flave for him,—
in this cafe Omar is entitled to take the flave, becaufe the agent
has himfelf acknowledged his agency on his behalf, and denial after
acknowledgment is of no effedt.— If, on the other hand, Omar fhould
deny his having authorifed the purchafe, in that cafe he is not entitled
to take the flave, becaufe the acknowledgment of the agent
is fet afide by the denial of Omar.— But if, under thefe circum-
ftances, the purchafer Ihould deliver the flave to Omar, it becomes
then a contract ofTale, for which the original purchafer is refponfible,
feeing
21
C h a p . I I . A G E N C Y ,
feeincthat Omar has purchafed it from.him after the mode of fiaata,
that is by mutual ' gift, as when a perfon buys a thing for another
without his authority and then delivers the faid thing to that other.—
The dodtrine of this cafe thews that the delivery of a thing according
to fale, fuffices to eftablifh a fale by fiaata or mutual gift, even although
the giving and receiving of the price. Ihould not have taken
place; and it alfo Ihews that a. fale by ftaata in things of great ot
little value is eftablilhed by the mutual confent of the parties. This
is the authentic dodtrine in the cafe of fuch fales.
If a perfon commiflion another to purchafe for him two fpecific
Haves without mentioning the price, and the agent purchafe
one of them, it is valid; for in this inftance the appointment
of agency is valid, and does not reftrict the agent to purchafe both of
the flaves by one contradt, which is often impracticable, becaufe of
the objedtion of the proprietor to include them both in one contradt.
T h e agent may therefore lawfully purchafe one out of two flaves, unlefs
when he does it by deceit, as his agency authorifes him only to
make a ju fi purchafe, which precludes him from making a deceitful
one.— The dodrine in this cafe is univerfally agreed to.
If a perfon defire another to purchafe him two particular flaves,
without mentioning the price, and the agent purchafe one of thefe
flaves, it is valid; becaufe the appointment of the agent, in this inftance,
is general -,— (in other words, does not reftridt the agency to
the purchafe o f both flaves by one contrail;) and it feldom happens, that
two flaves are purchafed by one contradt, as a mafter feldom fells two
flaves by one contradt. It is lawful for the agent, therefore, to purchafe
one of the tw o ;— (unlefs, indeed, the purchafe be made at an
evident difadvantage, which would be contrary to the end of the appointment.)
An agent is
at liberty, i f
he chufe, to
purchafe only
one o f two
flaves fpeci-
fied:
but not i f the
purchafe be
at an evident
difadvantage:
If