Lilley vs Doubleday
Citation: [1881] LR 7 QBD 510
Jurisdiction : England and Wales
Plaintiff : Lilley
Defendant : Doubleday
Facts :
The plaintiff, Lilley, specifically instructed the defendant, agent Doubleday, to store his goods at the warehouse located on Kingsland Road. The plaintiff also insured these goods, stating in the insurance documents that they were stored at Kingsland Road. However, in violation of the plaintiff’s instructions, the defendant stored some of the goods in a different warehouse. Subsequently, a fire broke out in that other warehouse, destroying the stored goods. Although the plaintiff had listed Kingsland Road as the warehouse location in his insurance documents, he couldn’t claim the insurance money because some of the goods were in a different warehouse. Therefore, Lilley sued Doubleday for breach of their agency contract, demanding compensation for his losses. It’s important to note that defendant, Doubleday, could not have foreseen such an incident at that warehouse, nor was the fire caused by his negligence.
Issues :
1. Would it be considered a breach of the agent’s duty if goods are not stored according to the principal’s explicit instructions?
2. Would the agent be liable for compensation for the destruction of goods due to their storage in an unauthorized location, even in the absence of their negligence?
Arguments :
Plaintiff’s Argument:
The plaintiff argued that he had the right to sue and claim damages from the defendant because the defendant had breached the explicit conditions of their contract. He contended that although the defendant was not directly involved in causing the fire, he should still be held liable, as he took the risk of storing the goods in a different warehouse.
Defendant’s Argument:
In response, the plaintiff’s argument, the defendant contended that he did not convert the plaintiff’s damaged goods and had taken sufficient care in their preservation, even though they were stored in a different warehouse. Therefore, he claimed that he is not liable to pay any compensation.
Decisions :
The Court held that the defendant, Doubleday, was liable to pay compensation for the destruction of the plaintiff’s goods due to the incident. It was established that, an agent must properly follow their principal’s instructions. However, in this case, the defendant’s inability to store the goods at the location specified by the principal is clear, meaning, a breach of the agency agreement occurred on their part. Although the plaintiff’s goods were stored properly and without any negligence in the alternative warehouse, the failure to comply with instructions resulted in the cancellation of the plaintiff’s insurance coverage. Consequently, the defendant was held fully liable for the resulting loss.d.
Relevant Laws :
- Law of Contract, 1872
- Section : 211
Author :
1. Sabbir Hossain Shovon
Note : The Case Summary is a platform by the law students, for the law students. We aim to summarize the facts and decisions of various important cases in both Bangla and English with utmost caution. However, this platform is in no way a replacement for going through the complete judgements by the law students and we discourage any learner from relying on case summaries alone. Thank you
