Question

3. Daniels hired Baker, a well know antique dealer, to sell Daniels' antique oak chest to Edwardson for $9,500. The next day, Baker was informed that Sanders is willing to pay $11,000 the chest. Baker nevertheless sold the chest to Edwardson because this is what he was hired to do. Daniels later found out about Sanders' willingness to pay a higher price. What are Daniels' rights, if any, against Baker? Please explain

Answer 1

Daniels, under the given circumstances, would have no rights against Baker.

In the instant case, Baker is engaged as an agent to act on behalf of Daniels, the principal. One of the important duties of the agent is to follow the mandate of the principal. It is mentioned that Daniels hired Baker to sell his antinque chest to Edwardson for $ 9,500. Therefore, if Baker had sold the chest to Sanders for a higher price ( and resultantly a higher brokerage), he could have been personaaly liable for the transaction on the ground of breach of warranty of authority. Daniels may have even refused to pay Baker his charges.

But, Baker could have informed Daniels about Sanders' willingness to pay a higher price, so that Daniels could have taken his call, and instructed Baker accordingly.