Agency

Pursuant to Art. 2179 of the Ethiopian civil code, we find two sources of representation:  the agreement of the parties or by law. In most cases, the authority to represent a person on a transaction with a third person emanates from the agreement of the parties and seldom, when the social and economic realities so demand, such authority is conferred on a person by operation of the law. When the authority to act on behalf of another emanates from the agreement of the parties, the outcome will be that there will be two separate contracts. These are the internal contract between the principal and the agent and main contract concluded by the agent in the name of the principal with a third party. Accordingly, the internal relationship between the representative and the represented is legal as opposed to contractual. Since such kind of relationship emanates from the law [by the operation of the law], it does not require a special consideration. Hence, our discussion under this topic will focus on agency contract or mandate.  In order to form a contract, consideration is one among the essential elements in the common law legal system. However, this is not an essential element of contract under the Ethiopian law of agency. Agency is one of the special forms of a contact. Therefore, in order to form an agency contract, consideration may not be essential under the Ethiopian law of agency. In addition to this, the elements of a valid contract provided for under art. 1678 of the civil code are also applicable for the formation of contract of a agency. These elements are:

1.   Sufficiently defined, possible and lawful object

2.   Consent and capacity

3.   Form should be fulfilled.

Now let us see each of the requirements for the formation of an agency contract.

1.   Object   

A contract is of no effect unless its object is sufficiently defined, possible and lawful as provided under art. 1715 and 1716 of the civil code. When we consider the agency contract, the most difficult area is related to sufficiently defined object. This particularly happens especially with the extent of the power given to an agent. Because it could be very difficult to fix such a power, for the agent usually deals with third parties in the absence of the principal, it is difficult for him to rely on the principal in determining whether the interests of the principal would best be served by performing a certain juridical act except the power of attorney given to him by the principal in advance. Hence it may not be possible to enumerate the power of attorney all the acts whose performance by the agent would further the interest of the principal. On the other hand, if the principal authorizes the agent to do everything he thinks promotes the interest of the former, there is a risk of abusing the power on the part of the agent.

The law in the above case tries to find a solution somewhere in between the two extremes. Accordingly, under the French law, power given in general terms is construed to include any acts of administration. According to this law, the performance of transactions other than acts of administration calls for an express power. Therefore, an agent cannot alienate or mortgage property where there is no express authority.

In a similar fashion, the Ethiopian civil code adopted the same solution as that of the French for the above-mentioned problem. As stated under art. 2203 of the civil code, authority given in general terms encapsulates only acts of management. In here one can raise the question of what acts of managements are. The concept of acts of management is provided for under art. 2204 of the civil code. Accordingly, acts of management are: ‘’Acts done for the preservation or maintenance of property, collection of debts, discharge of depts., sell of perishable things and goods intended to be sold interalia’’. In addition to this, art. 2205 of the civil code explicitly states that express authority is demanded in order to perform acts other than acts of management. When we look at sub art (2) of art 2205, it specially prohibits the agent to alienate or mortgage real state property without a special authority. Hence, an agent who is granted a general power of attorney cannot sell a property to the principal. In order to do so, he should be given a special authorization. However, if the agent sells among the properties of the principal where there is no authority to such effect, the principal will not be bound to the third party. Therefore, the agent in this case will be liable towards the third party, unless the principal ratifies the acts of the agent.

2. Capacity 

‘’He who gives a mandate exercises the will to do the act which he charges his mandatary to do in his place. He must therefore have the capacity necessary to do such an act, so that there is no particular capacity to a give a mandate; this capacity depends on the nature of the acts to be done’’

A principal can only delegate transactions, which he is capable to perform himself. He cannot extend his legal capacity by acting via an agent. Therefore a minor can appoint an agent only for the specific acts, which he is capable under the law to perform personally. 

Rights and duties are created directly on the principal by the contract, which the agent concludes in the name of the principal with the third party. Hence, regarding this contract, the capacity of the principal is an essential element of the contract because we have seen that this element is required to form a valid contract. And since agency is a special form of a contract, this element will be applicable there too.

The capacity of an agent is a matter of indifference with respect to the main contract. Hence, a principal can appoint an incapable person as his agent. If the former is confident enough in the honest and intellectual capacity of the incapable person. And this is owing to the fact that his agent is not responsible for the acts he performs in the name of the principal. The views with regard to the capacity of an agent and principal have been discussed under chapter one and no further discussion is required in here.

When we consider the Ethiopian civil code, a contract whose object is affected by incapacity can, upon the request of the incapable person, be invalidated [art1808 sub (1). However, if the incapable person does not apply for invalidation, the validity of the contract persists and the other party will be bound thereby. Therefore such a trend is equally applicable to the agency contract as it is a special contract.

   3. Consent

The vice of consent of contract are covered by arts 1696-1710 of the civil code. As in any other contracts, if the consent of either party [principal or agent] is vitiated by any of these vices the contract of agency becomes voidable that the party whose consent has been vitiated can invalidate the voidable contract pursuant to art. 1808 [1] of the civil code.

Concerning the main contract entered into by the agent with the third party in the name of the principal, Art. 2189[2] of the civil code gives the principal the right to avail himself to the defect in the consent of the agent. Similarly, sub art. [3] of art 2189 of the civil code entitles the third party to set up the fraud of the agent against the principal. Therefore the principal can demand the invalidation of the contract between the third party and himself pursuant to art. 1808 (1) of the civil code, on the basis of the vitiated consent of the gent during the making of the contract. Similarly, the third party, which has been defrauded by the agent can request the invalidation of the contract according to art. 1808[1] of the civil code.

Pursuant to art. 2189 of the civil code, more favor is given to the principal in protecting him than to the third party according to art 2189 [2]; the principal can avail himself of any defect in the consent of the agent.

Sub art [2] of art 2189 of the civil code doesn’t put a restriction as to the type of defect which the principal can employ as a basis of invalidating the contract. On the other hand, sub art [3] of art 2189 states that the only defect that the third party can raise against the principal is ‘’the fraud of the agent’’. The defect that the third party can invoke for the purpose of invalidating the contract is limited to only one kind of defect. That is, mistake, duress, false statement etc. cannot be invoked by the third party as defenses against the principal. Hence, one can conclude that art.2189 of the civil code renders more protection to the principal than to the third party.

4.   Form

As a rule no special form is required to conclude a contract. This is left to the choice of the parties to opt the form in which their contact is to be made. Sometimes however, this may not be true. Where a special form is required by law or when parties by themselves stipulate to observe a special form, the contract will not be affected unless it is made in conformity with this formal requirement. Hence it non-observance of the form that parties agreed or the law prescribes makes the contract a mere draft. Hence doesn’t bind parties, for it will not have any legal effect.

Let us consider the following provisions of the civil code.

Article 1720 Effects of provisions so to form

(1)Where a special form is prescribed by law and not observed, there shall be no contract but a mere draft of a contract.

(2)A contract shall be valid notwithstanding that fiscal provisions, such as provisos relating to stamp duty or registration fee, have not been complied with

(3)Unless otherwise provided, a contract shall be valid not-withstanding that prescribed measures of publication have been complied with.

As provided above, the contracting parties are free to make their contract in the form they assume is proper except the mandatory provisions prescribing a special form. The degree of this freedom of making a contract in the form that the contracting parties opt is not free of any limitation.

It is only upon the fulfillment of the following two conditions that the freedom mentioned above, works. These conditions are:

a.   There should not exist other forms that the law prescribed to be adhered to by the contacting parties.

b.   The parties should not stipulate any special form when they make their contract.

 Agency contract is a special form of a contract; hence the above provisions, which are applicable to the general contracts, can apply to the agency relationships.

Genesis, Development and Principles

The Roman low has been exerting a significant impact on the formation and development of modern private laws in many countries of the world, starting from the era of Justinia who was the Emperor of the Roman Empire around the 6th century A.D “Ethiopians at this time were in permanent communication with the Roman Empire of the East from which they derived their law (the Law existing legal system) based on the Roman law of Justinia.

From the above point we can observe that, even prior to the adoption of the Fetha Negest around the 16th century; the Roman law of Justinian influenced the Ethiopian legal system in its earliest stage. The Fetha Negest was not directly adopted from the Romans. It was a translation of the Egyptian Arabic prospects /version/ into ‘Geez’

Based on the point the “Ethiopian Christians declared the authority of the religious canon translated from Arab into Geez the Liturgical language of the Coptic church, and this model is related to the Byzantine tradition of law, and the Fetha Negest which is translation into Geez of Arabic precepts of the law which found their first inspiration in the book of Syro-Roman law and consequently in the Roman”

The historical genesis of the Fetha Negest, as discussed above, has connections with the early laws of the Roman Empire. TheFetha Negest under chapter 30 deals with the concept of mandate. This provision, which is provided for under chapter 30 dealing with the contract of mandate, provides rules governing the relationship of mandatory (Principal) and mandatory (agent). It doesn’t draw any distinction between the contract of mandate and authority. In this case, it means the contract of mandate embodied in the Fetha Negest is concerned only with the internal relations of the principal and agent; it doesn’t deal with the external relations of principal and agent towards third parties.

Hence, based on the concept encapsulated under the Fetha Negest, regarding the contract of mandate:

“The mandatory (agent) used to accept the mandate with or without remuneration; and a mandate was not held valid unless the mandatory (principal) gives it verbally and the mandatory [agent] accepts the word of the mandatory either formally or by his action”  (Rene David “1962, P 192)

In addition to the above point, the mandatary (agent) was obliged to follow the instructions provided from the mandator (principal). For example, the agent (mandatary)

Is prohibited to sell any thing on credit, without the order (direction provided beyond the fixed price. In addition to this, the Fetha Negest had a concept, which states that the mandator was to refrain from intervening whenever there is a dispute between the mandatary and the third party. According to this concept, the mandatary should confront the third party and be liable to third parties if any. ( Paulas Tzasuam  1968, pp.172  )

The aforementioned concepts indicate that according to the Fetha Negest, the contract of mandate had only to say with regard to the internal relation of the mandate giver and the mandate receiver (mandatory or agent). Hence the external relations i.e the relation of the mandatory or mandatory with a third party was not given a cover.

The concept of mandate provided under the Fetha Negest is similar to that of the continental Europe codes that had been promulgated prior to the coming into view of the separation theory. As provided earlier, in the discussion of civil law theory of agency, the distinction between authority and mandate was actualized after the theory of separation was identified. The theory of separation laid a clear demarcation between mandate and authority. Hence countries that adhered to the continental legal system adopted this approach.

To mention examples “The above concepts are found encapsulated under art. 164 of the German civil code, art 32 of the law of obligation of Switzerland, civil code of France art 211, and art. 2179, 2199 of the civil code” of Ethiopia

In addition to this, as provided by Michal Kindered, “ the principal sources of the Ethiopian civil code with respect to the law of obligation was the Swiss Federal code of obligations, and the French civil code was an important source”

From the above discussion point of view, the Swiss federal code of obligation and the French civil code, which became the sources for the Ethiopian law of agency, incorporate the concept of separation under their legal system. Hence, we can deduce that the current representation law of Ethiopia adheres to the theory of separation. Therefore, the Ethiopian Law of agency deals with the respective concepts of mandate and authority in different provisions of the code. Hence, the internal relations of the principal and agent are dealt with by arts 2179-98 of the civil code. However, the external relations of the principal and agent towards the third party are governed by articles 2179-98 cum Art 2199-2265 based on art 2233 of the civil code.

The Ethiopian civil code also adheres to the mode of the civil law theory in agency representation. This is through adopting the name test theory.

Art. 2197(1) states:

“An agent who acts in his/her own behalf shall personally enjoy the rights or incur the liabilities deriving from the contracts he makes with third parties, not with standing that such third parties know that he is an agent.”

The concept of the above provision is that it stresses the principle that, as far as an agent acts in his own name, but for the interest of his/her principal, the third party should not directly sue the principal where there is non-performance of contracts. What does this mean?

As far as the agent enters into a contractual agreement with a third party, without disclosing his intention to a third party that he is transacting on behalf of his principal, the agent shall be liable for damages incurred on third parties. And since, the agent acts in his/her own name, the awareness of the third party that he/she is an agent is not an issue and it does not make him free form liability. In the same manner an undisclosed principal who has an interest on a third party has no right to get his remedy by brining a direct action against a third party.

The concept of commission agency is also incorporated under the civil code.

Art 2234(1) states

“ the commission to buy or to sell  is a contract of agency whereby the agent, called the commission agent, undertakes to buy or to self in his own name but on behalf of another person, called the principal, goods, securities or other fungible things.”

Under the Ethiopian law of agency, so as to create a commercial link between the principal and the commission agent, two consecutive contracts should be made by the commission agent. These are the contract that is made between the third party and the commissioner [representative] and the relation existing between commissioner and the principal.

According to the above point, there is no direct relation   /connection/ between the principal and the third party. The main function of a commission agent, according to the civil Code, is to sell, buy or forward goods in the name of the commission agent but on behalf of the principal. The concept of commission agency is governed by special provisions (Art 2234-2252) of the civil code.

Authority by Virtue of Contractual Agency

We have discussed what authority is under the above topics. This topic focuses on authority, which is derived from the agreement of the contracting parties, agent and principal. Hence in reading this topic we shall see it from the perspectives of the common law approach, the civil law and the Ethiopian approach in order to understand it well.

The common Law Approach. (Law of Agency, Am. J: comp. law vol6 1957)

The foundation (theoretical) of the modern concept of agency in the common law is the doctrine of identity of principal and agent, in which this theory is generally expressed in the phrase ‘’qui facit per altrum facit per se’’ [meaning, he who acts through another acts himself]. While adopting this theory, however, no distinction was made between the internal relation of principal and agent on the one hand, and the external relation between principal and agent towards third a party on the other hand. The reason what the common law theory failed to make distinctions between these relations of the principal – agent and a third party was due to the maxim provided above, which involves the contract of only two persons.

In the perspective of commercial life, the central problem in the law of agency is the protection of the rights of the third party, who has transacted business with an agent who was not authorized to transact that business. ‘’The theory of identity in regard to this problem adopts the maxim that the unauthorized acts of the agent does not bind the principal’’ But, owing to commercial needs force in certain conditions, some exceptions are accredited to the theory of identity in order to protect a third party who acts in good faith, with an agent. The theory of identity states as follows:

Where a mercantile agent, with the consent of the owner, is in possession of goods or documents of title, a third party to whom the agent sells pledges or otherwise disposes of the goods or documents in the ordinary course of his business is protected if that third party acts in good faith and has not at the time of the disposition notice that [the agent] has no authority to make the same. In that instance the disposition shall be as valid if the agent were expressly authorized by the owner of the goods to make the same. (F.H Lawson,  1969,p131)

According to these circumstances, the test adopted by the common law pursuant to the doctrine of identity in order to protect a third party accepting in good faith a disposition by the mercantile agent is that ‘’ whether the goods or documents were entrusted to him by their owner’’. ‘’This test operates irrespective of whether the mercantile agent carried out the unauthorized disposition in his own name as will often be the case or in the name of his principal. (F.H Lawson, 1969, p131) An impediment arises, however when an agent is warned by his principal not to sell or dispose unless the latter tells the former to sell or dispose in his name without disclosing his principal’s name. In giving a solution to such a problem the common law theory’’ disregards whether the representative acted in the name of the principal or in his own name as irrelevant and it is the ‘’entrusting’’ of the goods or documents which makes the person a mercantile agent.

The Theory of agency in the common law is classified into three types of agents.  These are

• · Agents acting for a named principal,
• · Agents acting for an unnamed principal, and
• · Agents acting for undisclosed principal

These three agents have a common function. That is, they act as an instrument in order to procure links between the principal and third parties in contractual relations. The major problem that may arise in an agency contractual relationship from the point of view of a contracting third party is to ascertain with whom he has contracted. Nevertheless, it is obvious that in the theory of agency contract, rights and duties arise primarily with the contracting third party and the party with whom he has made the main contract, since the third party may be ignorant of the existence of a principal. However, in order to solve such a problem, as discussed above, the liability test, which the common law agency doctrine has developed for undisclosed agency, provides the necessary principles.

The theory of undisclosed principal corresponds to the indirect agency of the civil law. The theory of liability test of the common law, more over, pays more attention as it was discussed before to the test whether the goods or documents of title come into the possession of the agent by the consent of their owner, and such test does not give any regard to the name test which emphasizes in whose name the goods or documents of title came to the agent which is the concept of the civil law.

Hence, as the common law doctrine of identity avoids the fragmentation typical of the civil law situation, the fundamental distinction that is created by the civil law concerning direct and indirect agency is completely unknown to the common law, since its concept of agency is sufficiently general to embrace both forms of representation. (I.e. A commission agent and commercial agent.)

The Civil Law Approach

The contact of mandate, which emerged with the growth of commercial transaction, served to a considerable degree the practical substitution of agency. The mandatory [agent] in his course of contractual power was entitled to act in the interest of the mandate giver with a third party, but in his acts that he does with third parties, he may not bind his mandate- giver liable to the third party. The mandatory [agent] himself is responsible for the acts or contracts he entered into with the third party.

The theory of mandate demands that each party has certain duties and responsibilities that he should respect while the parties are in the course of the contract of mandate. Based on the above principle, the mandatarius (agent) and the mandator (principal) were bound to the following duties, (William L.Burdick, 1938, pp 193):

He/she had to execute the mandate reasonably in good time. , He/she was also bound not to exceed the mandate, to exercise diligently, to render accounts and to make over to the mandator (principal) all benefits accruing from the mandate including rights of actions against third parties.

However among the duties of the mandator (principal) were to indemnify the mandatarius (agent) against expenses, loss and liability incurred in the execution of the mandate. Besides, he is bound not to revoke the mandate to his prejudice.

The mandate that exists between the mandatory and mandatory’s could also be terminated by mutual consent of the parties, by a unilateral revocation or renunciation of either party or by the death of either party.

The doctrine of agency in civil law legal system was founded in the theory of separation. What is the theory of separation?

‘’ The most characteristic feature of the theory of agency in the civil law is the strict conceptual separation of the mandate, i.e. the contract between the principal and agent. From the authority, that is the power of the agent to contract for the principal with the third party.’’

We can understand that the emergence of the doctrine of separation in the civil law system has contributed to a considerable degree in discriminating the difference between mandate and authority. The theory of separation, which was, expounded by a German Jurist Laaband, could clearly point out the different aspects of mandate and authority as follows.

‘’Mandate points to the internal relations between two persons – the mandator and the mandatory, while representation (authority) on the other hand, points to the external aspects of the transaction; the relation of principal and agent towards third parties.’’

Based on the above point the very relevant issue to be considered is that the agent’s power to conclude a contract of mandate. That means the internal contract that is made between the principal and agent in regard to the extent of authority that the principal is giving to his agent is in principle ineffective with regard to a third party. This view implies that the third party does not bother about the contract of mandate that exists between the principal and agent.

Owing to the development of the theory of separation in the civil law legal system, the feature of the various types of intermediary ship is defined to underlying internal relationship between the principal and the agent. . To mention an example, the German civil code provides thirteen types of intermediary ships. In comparison to the German civil code, the French civil code adopted only four main types of intermediary ship. To mention them: (F.H. Lawson, 1969, pp125)

• ·Independent agent
• ·Employed agent
• · Commission agent and
• ·Broker

With regard to the agency relationship from the view point of a third party, the key problem pinpoints ‘with whom has the third party contracted ‘. The civil law theory to answer this issue, adopts the test that ‘to ascertain whether the agent has contracted in a representative or personal capacity.’

According to the test adopted by the civil law, regarding the ascertainment of whether the agent acted in a representative or personal capacity, is the name test, which is in line with the direct and indirect agency that is a leading doctrine of the civil law.

The above concept implies that

‘’ If an agent acted in his representative capacity, normally on behalf of his principal, the agency is to be direct, and if he acted in his own name, but for the account of his principal, the agency is indirect. (’ F.H. Lawson, 1969, pp136)

Pursuant to the civil law theory of agency, ‘’the direct agent is referred to as a commercial agent and the indirect agent as a commission agent, while in the common law terminology both types of representatives are described as agents.’’  (F.H. Lawson, The Roman law reader, 1969, pp125) with no distinction in between them.

To put it in a   nutshell, under the theory of agency in the civil law legal system, in order to make an agent to be bound by his acts to an unnamed principal, he/she must at least disclose his intention of contracting as an agent or the situations must indicate this. Otherwise, the contract he concludes with a third party is considered as if he/she acted in his personal capacity, and it will not be important that he had the undeclared intention of acting for a principal and was duly authorized to do so or that he acts on the account of his principal.

This method leads to the distinction drawn between direct and indirect agency. Starting from this point of view, the civil and common law legal system adhere to different patterns.

Under the common law legal system, ‘’if an agent was duly authorized, but acted in his own name, without disclosing the existence of his principal to the third party, the principal can nevertheless intervene and sue the third party directly.

Under the above category of agency (under the common law) the named and an unnamed principal corresponds to the direct agency of the civil law, while the undisclosed principal corresponds to the indirect agency, even though their application in commercial transactions is practically different.

Pursuant to the varied patterns, which the indirect and undisclosed agency follows, in the activities of commercial life, the practical effect resulting in the final analysis is completely different.

Hence the civil law follows the following practical application. ‘’In the case of direct agency, (commission) the commercial link between the third party and the principal (commettant) is based on two consecutive contracts. The contract between the third party and the commissioner and between the commissioner and the principal (commetant), and these two contracts is immutable’’. (F.H. Lawson, The Roman law reader, 1969, pp140)

According to the above two-contracts construction in the civil law legal system of direct agency, in principle there is no direct relation between the principal and the third party.

When we see the principle of undisclosed agency, the two –contracts construction is avoided. Accordingly, when we see the practical application of the undisclosed agency in business transactions, the concept lies as follows

‘’If the agent was duly authorized but acted in his/her own name, without disclosing the existence of the principal, the latter can nevertheless intervene and sue the third party directly. And in the case of an agent acting for an undisclosed principal, the third party has a right of election when the existence and the identity of the agent becomes known to him/her later. The third party may either to retain the agent as his/her contracting party, or to treat the principal as such.’’

Pursuant to the above concept, once the third party is aware of the existence of the a principal, a direct contractual relationship shall be established or created between the principal and a third party in which direct rights and duties accrue under that contract between the third party and the principal. Due to the one contract situation, in the Common law agency theory ‘‘no assignment or transfer of property from the agent to the principal is necessary, and as the case of normal direct agency was duly authorized, no liability falls on the agent.’’

To give a summary of the above discussion, in both the civil and common law legal systems, there exists a different approach and practical situation of the agency theory. However, there are certain principles in common. Under this common principle, if a direct agent acts for his principal within the scope of his authority, privity of contracts does exist only between the principal and a third party. Hence in this case, the agent will not be liable to the third party. In addition to this, he will not acquire rights the against the third party. Therefore, under both the civil and common law legal systems, it is admitted if a direct agent acts for the reason that he has no authority or exceeds his authority, in such a case, unless the principal ratifies the unauthorized acts of such an agent, the agent himself shall be held liable for the third party unless the principal knew or ought to have known the defect in the authority. Under such cases, the French code provides the third party with a claim for indemnity. The German law, in such cases again permits the following right.

A third party has a right of election as against the agent, and therefore, he/she can claim specific performance or damage, but if the agent was aware of his/her lack of authority he/she is only liable for the damages that the third party actually suffered in the consequences of the main contract.

Obviously, an agent is a person who has the authority to act in the name and on behalf of another person called the principal. In other words, it is an authority given to the agent to perform juridical acts as a medium of an intermediary with another person called the third party. By juridical act, we mean acts having effects before the law. These acts performed within the scope of the authority granted, will bind the principal directly. That means the rights and obligations of the contract are that of the principal and the third party. The agent there is only to facilitate the formation of the contract and hence cannot be held liable for the non-performance by both the principal and the third party.

Here the main question to be raised is: what is mean by the authority of the agent.

There is no single whole definition of authority in the existing written materials. Different writers have given different definitions of authority based on the  intended purpose of focus. In ordinary words authority is the right to exercise powers.

Authority, as regards the law of agency, means an ability on the part of the agent to execute certain acts in the name and on behalf of the principal, in accordance with the latter is manifestations of consent to the agent.

It is believed that every relationship may be created having some purposes behind its inception. As agency is one form of relationship, it cannot escape from such facts. Consequently, it is one of the most common legal relationships that enable one to make numerous lawful acts at a time with different persons in different places. That means an agency relationship is created with a view to develop transactions in the absence of a person who wants to stretch his hands to various legally binding acts at the same time. In a nutshell, such agency relationship is introduced in order to avoid transaction barriers that might be result due to time and place limitation.

Having the aforementioned facts in mind, we now proceed towards discussing the concept on source of authority. Thus, as provided under art. 2179 of the civil code, the authority to act on behalf of another may derive from law or contract. Accordingly, the authority of an agent is the power of agency which the agent acquirs by the operation of the law or by a contract concluded between the agent and the principal to this end. The details will be discussed as fuscous.

A. Authority derived from a contract.

Agency which is derived from a contractual relationship is the most usual kind of agency. Accordingly, for many authors consent is the basis of the law of agency and it explains why the agent can represent the principal.

Under this topic, we would like to point out that we are referring to the agency arising out of bilateral agreements between principal and agent as articulated under art.2199 of the civil code.

‘’Agency is a contract where by a person, the agent, agrees with another person, the principal, to represent him and to perform on his behalf one or several legally binding acts’’

As we can see from the above provision, an agency is a contract, which is formed between the agent and the principal.

Obviously, under such agency relationship, which arises out of a contract, we find two independent contracts. These are regarded as

¨Internal contract [subordinate contract]

¨External contract [main contract]

I. Internal contract [subordinate contract]

Internal contract is a contract that exists between the principal and an agent. Under this contract the principal concludes a contract with an agent under  the auspices that the agent could play an important role in the formation of the main contract. That is the agent could enable the principal to transact with a third party through an intermediary or an agent. This contract is essentially concerned with the rights and duties of such parties. In most cases, this internal relationship is created by contract, although there are cases where it could be created by the operation of the law, to determine the respective duties and rights of the parties. In any manner, one has to basically rely on the terms of the agreements of the parties in order to distinguish their respective duties and rights.

II External contract [main contract]

External contract is a contract that exists between the principal and a third party. This relationship is the most crucial aspect as far as the law of agency is concerned. It is concerned with the rights, duties and liabilities that could be created as between a principal and a third party through the intermediary of an agent. In this regard, for a direct relationship to be created between the principal and the third party, in principle, the agent must have acted in the name and on behalf of the principal within the scope of his power. Once these elements are fulfilled, as regards the effect of the contract, the agent steps out and only the principal and the third party remains to be parties to the contract concluded. Consequently, the rules of an ordinary contract, which could operate between two contracting parties, will be applicable to the principal and third party relationship.

Furthermore, it must be noted that agency is one of the special types of contract and thus, the rules applicable to the formation of a valid contract, are of necessity, applicable to the agency relationship. Accordingly, the elements required under the law for the formation of a valid contract as enumerated under art. 1678 of the civil code are required in agency contract as well. These elements are

1. The parties must be capable of contracting and give their consent sustainable at law.
2. The object of the contract must be sufficiently defined, possible, and lawful.
3. The contract must be made in the form prescribed by the law, if any.

Therefore, the formation of a valid agency relationship requires the existence of certain essential elements. If these elements are not satisfied, the agency relationship becomes invalid. Accordingly, parties to the agency relationship must have the capacity to enter into the contract, their consent must be sustainable at law, the object of the contract of agency relationship must be sufficiently defined, possible and lawful, and finally the contract of agency must be made in a prescribed form if any.

For the sake of clarification, we need to see the basic elements of contract agency under the following subtopics.

• Capacity

The first essential requirement for the validity of a contract is the capacity of the parties. The literal meaning of capacity is the ability to do something. Since agency relationship is a special type of contract the party who wishes to enter into an agency relationship must have the capacity to do so. Thus, capacity to a contract means competence to enter into a legally binding agreement.

All persons do not have the same legal capacity to make a contract. In some cases; the legal capacity of a person has no relation to the individual’s actual ability. That is, there is a distinction between natural capacity and legal capacity. For instance, natural capacity may itself be either the capacity to own property or the capacity to exercise rights over a property. When dealing with legal, contractual capacity, we mean the capacity to exercise rights, not the capacity to own the property. This is so because, under Art 1 of the civil code,  it is provided that “Human person is the subject of rights from its birth to its death.” Once born, a human baby can acquire rights, even a child merely conceived is considered born and acquires rights wherever his interest so requires provided he is born alive and viable. Therefore, legal or contractual capacity requires only the capacity to exercise rights. That is, the mere possession of rights and duties does not presuppose the capacity of a person to enter into legally binding agreement.

As a rule every physical person is capable of performing acts of civil life unless he is declared incapable by law. That is, every party to a contract is presumed to have a contractual capacity until the contrary is shown. Notwithstanding that, every physical person is presumed to be capable, the law for one reason or another, declares some member or group of society incapable. There are two types of disabilities recognized under the civil code. These are: general disability and special disability. General disability may depend on the age (minority), mental conditions (insanity of persons) or on a sentence passed upon persons (legally interdicted persons). On the other hand, special incapacity may result from the nationality of a person or from functions exercised by him [her].

When we come to the special agency contract, all the parties involved in such contract have to possess capacity, to effect the agency contract. Specifically, as regards the third party, as a party to a contract, it is obvious that he [she] has to possess the legally required capacity if he wishes to create a legally valid relationship. Likewise the principal must be legally capable for the very reason that when he [she] authorizes an agent to perform a certain juridical act on his behalf, he should necessarily be legally capable of performing such acts. That is to say for a juridical act to be valid; the parties must have the necessary legal capacity. On the other hand, one can not enlarge his capacity by appointing an agent to act on his behalf, that is, the principal can not be entitled to a better right by merely authorizing the agent beyond whatever right he can personally exercise.

The question is whether or not an agent must have the legally required capacity to act on behalf of a principal. Let us consider the concept on this issue encapsulated under American Commercial Law Series ", by Alfred W. Bays,

Sec. 9. ‘Power To Act As Agent’

Any person, though without power to contract in his own right may act as an agent for another.

A person must be capable of acting in his own right (sui juris) to be principal, for the simple reason that what he has no power to do personally he cannot acquire power to do by doing it through another. But what one may not do for himself because he lacks capacity he may do for another who has the capacity9 He may not, of course, bind himself upon a contract of agency if he lacks capacity to contract, but he may, if he chooses, actually perform the function of an agent. Thus, minors may act as agents and the contracts made by them in the name of the principals and pursuant to authority are binding upon such principals. The reason is that the agent does not bind himself but acts as a mere intermediary through which the minds of the contracting parties meet, whereupon the agent has performed his office.

Example 4. Mebrahtom sends his office boy to buy supplies on Mebrahtom's credit from Zeneb. The boy orders the supplies according to his authority. This makes a contract between Mebrahtom and Zeneb as binding as though they had contracted personally.

The Ethiopian civil code, under the agency law nowhere specifically provides that an agent has to posses a legally required capacity to act on behalf of the principal. Thus it is far from being clear whether our law requires capacity of an agent. However one argument could arise that the Ethiopian civil code quite exceptionally requires that an agent shall have the legal capacity pursuant to art. 2182 [1] and art. 2230[1] of the civil code. The latter article  for example states as follows,

‘’Unless other wise agreed a contract of agency shall terminate by the death of the agent or where he is declared absent, become incapable or is adjudicated bankrupt.’’

Reading into this article envisages that the article refers only to an agent who had capacity at the time of authorization but declared incapable at a latter time in which case a principal should not be denied the right to terminate the agency relationship where his agent becomes incapable. Hence, to construe the stated article, as it requires the agent’s legal capacity may be inconsistent with the intention of the drafter of the civil code. Admittedly, what is provided under art.2182 is not different from the above mentioned. Therefore, the requirement of the agent’s capacity even under the Ethiopian law is apparent.

• Consent

Consent is an agreement that is free from any defect. The freedom of contract is expressed in consent. There are two aspects to consent. First, there must be an agreement on each detail (identity, price mode and day of delivery and payment etc), and secondly consent is the willingness of the parties to be bound by the agreement. If the contract is affected by a defect in consent, it may be invalidated at the request of the party who invokes the mistake.

Many authors believe that consent is the basis of the law of agency, and it explains why the agent can represent the principal. For example agency is defined as the relationship which exists between two persons, one of whom expressly consents that he should impliedly act on his behalf. Similarly, one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control and consent by the other so to act defines an agency.”

However, it is mostly stated   that too much emphasis on consent should be avoided. In many cases consent is the basis of the agent’s power and determines its ambit. But there are many cases, notably the cases of apparent and presumed authority in which the relationship may arise irrespective of or indeed contrary to the real wishes of the parties and to speak of consent in such cases is only to distort the real and usual meaning of the word.

Great emphasis on consent should also be avoided for another reason: namely that it may suggest that all the courts have to do is to look at the facts before them and mechanically determine whether or not they are faced with agency relationship. This is not necessarily the case for the courts have to look at the facts and construe them in a legal manner. The vices of consent for a contract are covered by art.1696-1710 of the civil code. Like any other contracts, if the consent of either the principal or the agent is vitiated by any of theses vices, the contract of agency becomes voidable. The party whose consent has been vitiated can have the voidable contract invalidated according to art.1808 [1] of the civil code.

With regard to the main contract entered into by the agent with the third party, in the name of the principals, art.2189 [2] of the civil code gives the principal the right to avail himself of the defect in the consent of the agent. Likewise, sub article [3] of art.2189 of the civil code entitles the third party to set up the fraud of the agent against the principal. Hence the principal can demand the invalidation of the contract between the third party and himself in accordance with art. 1808 [1] of the civil code on the ground that the consent of his agent has been vitiated during the making of the contract. In the same way the third party that has been defrauded by the agent can request the invalidation of the contract pursuant to art.1808 [1].

Article 2189 of the civil code seems to favor the principal in that it gives more protection to him than to the third party. Under sub art [2] of art. 2189 the principal can avail himself of any defects in the consent of the agent. This sub art does not put a restriction as to the type of defect, which the principal can employ, as a ground for invalidating the contract. On the other hand, under sub art [3] of art 2189 the only defect that the third party can raise against the principal is the fraud of the agent. The defect that the third party can invoke for the purpose of invalidating the contract is limited to only one kind of defect. This means that he cannot invoke mistake, duress, false statement, etc, as a defense against the principal. Therefore it is clear that art. 2189 of the civil code provides less protection to the third party than to the principal.

The Object of Agency Relationship

The object prescribed in the general provisions of the contract is not the object that can be seen or touched, but the obligations undertaken by the parties. So the object of the contract may be positive or negative. The obligations to give something or to do something are positive obligations whereas an obligation not to do something is a negative one.

Under art.1711 of the Ethiopian civil code, contracting parties are free to determine their obligation but their freedom is not an absolute one-it is subjected to such restrictions and prohibitions as is provided by law. On the other hand, under art.1678 (b) of the civil code, the law imposes on the contracting party to engage in a defined, lawful and possible obligation.

The object of the contract must be defined with sufficient precision. A contract shall be of no effect where the obligations of the parties or of one of them cannot be ascertained. An obligation that is not defined by the parties cannot be defined by courts of law. As art. 1714 of the civil code stipulates, the court may not make a contract for the parties under the guise of interpretation.

The object of the contract must be lawful as provided under art.1716 of the civil code, where the obligations of the parties or one of them are unlawful or immoral, the contract ends in invalidation.

Moreover, the object of the contract must be possible of performance. A contract shall be of no effect where the obligations of the parties or one of them relate to a thing or a fact that is impossible and such impossibility is absolute and insuperable, as provided in Art 1715.

As far as the contract of agency is concerned, there is special problem on the question of lawfulness or possibility of its object. However, problems are usually faced with the requirement of the sufficiently defined object. This is especially true with the extent of the power given to an agent. It is extremely difficult to exactly fix the limits of such power. Since the agent deals with third parties usually in the absence of the principal, he has nothing to rely on in determining whether the interest of the principal would best be served by performing a certain juridical act except the power of attorney given to him by the principal in advance. As a matter of fact, it may not be possible to enumerate in the power of attorney all the acts whose performance by the agent would further the interest of the principal. On the other hand, if the principal authorizes the agent to do everything that he thinks promotes the interest of the former, there is the danger of abusing the power on the part of the agent.

In view of this problems, it was necessary to find a solution somewhere in between the two extremes. Consequently under the French law, power given in general terms is construed to include only acts of administration. Under this law, the performance of transaction other than acts of administration, calls for an express power. Hence, an agent cannot alienate or mortgage property without express authority.

The Ethiopian civil code has adopted the same solution similar to the French for the problem. As provided by art. 2203 of the civil code, authority granted in general terms includes only acts of management. Naturally, a question would arise here regarding what are acts of management are Art. 2204 gives the answer to this question. Acts done for the preservation or maintenance of property, cancellation of debts, discharge of debts, sell of perishable things and goods intended to be sold, interalia, are acts of management under art.2204. Art 2205 of the civil code explicitly states that express authority is required for the performance of the transactions other than acts of management. Sub-art two of this article particularly forbids the agent to alienate or mortgage real state property without special authority. Thus an agent with the general power of attorney cannot sell the property of the principal. For this purpose, he needs a special authorization. But if he sells one of the properties of the principal without such authority, the latter will not be bound to the third party. Unless the principal ratifies the act of the agent, the agent will be liable towards the third party in the contract.

Form of Agency Contract

As a general rule, for the formation of an agency contract no special form is required unless the law provides that the contract of agency be made in a specified form (article 1719(2) and 2180 of the civil code), or the parties stipulate  that their contract be made in a special form (article 1719(3) of the civil code).

There is no special requirement for the form of agency contract. It can be made in any form. But if the law for the contract that the agent concludes in the name of the principal prescribes a special form, the authority to make such a contract should be given in the same form. As provided under art 2180 of the civil code, for instance, art.1725 of the civil code provides that a contract of insurance shall be concluded in writing. Supposing principal (P) authorizes the agent to make a contract of insurance for him, the authority for this purpose must be given in writing. Apart from this, the contract of agency can be expressed, that is, written or oral, or it can be implied, that is, it can be inferred from the conduct of the parties as provided under art.2200 [1] of the civil code.

As briefly discussed above these elements of the contract should be fully satisfied before a valid contract of agency can be formed. The absence of any of these elements renders the agency either voidable or void abinitio as the case may be, and it will be subjected to invalidation by the proper authority.

In this case a question would arise what would be the fate of the contract entered into by the agent in the name of the principal with a third party when the agency contract between the principal and the agent is invalidated for the lack of any of the elements of the contract, which we have discussed above? This issue may be resolved in two different ways. First, it can be argued that since the agency contract is the basis of the main contract, the invalidation of the former should automatically cause the invalidation of the latter. This approach renders the position of the third party insecure in that it makes the validity of the contract that exists between the third party and the principal totally dependent on the existence of the contract between the principal and the agent to which the third party has no connection. This problem can be minimized to a large extent by the application of art.1816 of the civil code, which provides that acts done in the performance of a contract shall not be invalidated when the interest of the third party in good faith so requires. Therefore, although the agency contract is invalidated by the principal or the agent or by any other interested parties in accordance with art. 1808 of the civil code, the main contract, which the agent concluded in the name of the principal with the third party in performance of the agency contract, remains in force as between the principal and the third party where the interest of the third party so demands. This is however subjected to the qualification that such third party must not have been aware of the facts that caused the invalidation of the agency contract. Hence a third party, which contracted with the agent knowing the possible causes of the invalidation of the agency contract cannot invoke art. 1816 of the civil code.

The second solution is based on the doctrine of separation. According to this doctrine, mandate [the relationship between the principal and the agent] and representation [the relation of the principal and the third party] are independent. Thus there may exist mandate without representation and vise versa. Therefore since the relationship between the principal and the agent on the one hand, and the relation of the principal with the third party on the other are separate phenomena, the invalidation of the agency contract should not by itself constitute a ground of invalidation for the main contract.

According to the above arguments, it is better to adopt the second solution in Ethiopia. because, in the first place, the solution is in line with the doctrinal basis of the Ethiopian law of agency, which is the doctrine of separation, and secondly compared to art.1816 of the civil code, it affords more protection for third parties that the protection under this solution is not restricted by the requirement of good faith on the part of the third party. In other words, since this solution maintains the main contract effective, despite the invalidation of the agency contact, third parties who are aware of the fact that caused the invalidation of the agency are protected as well as those who are ignorant of such facts during the conclusion of the main contract. This seems logical because, as the third party has no connection with the contract of agency, the fact that he is aware of the possible causes of invalidation of such contract should not affect the validity of the contract between the third party and the principal.

B. Authority by Judicial Act

A different kind of source of agency is authority granted by the court. That is, an authority to act on behalf of another may emanate form the court’s decision. Courts, upon evolvements of some conditions, may appoint some other person to do activities pertaining to the other. The provisions governing court authorization are provided here in after:

This situation is not an agency either by a prior agreement of the parties or by the lawmaker. But it arises by the order of the court upon application. This case of agency is governed by Arts 2253-2256. The person appointed by order of the court is called the curator. Thus the parties involved in here are the person represented and the curator. This appointment of curator is usually necessitated when the person whose interest (s) are (is) to be represented is not in a position to appoint an agent by reason of being a way, ill or any similar causes (Art 2255). In these cases only limited persons (relatives, spouse and nobody) shall apply to a court with jurisdiction for the appointment of an agent to protect the interest of the person to whose benefit a curator is required. (Art 2254).

Only relatives and/or spouses have these rights in order to protect the interest of the person represented against misuse of his interest. The person to be appointed is going to carry out those “acts as are of an urgent nature” [Art. 2255(2)]

The curator is expected to work for the interest of the person represented, and the court may give directions on how to carry out the obligations and may impose liability on the curator. The curator has to inform his appointment as soon as possible to the person he/she represent. The curator is a contractual agent for all the rights and duties [Art. 2256]. Because of lack of space and time we cannot write down the relevant provisions of this subsection. Thus, you are advised to refer frequently to the Civil Code provisions, relevant and cited above.

Article 2253 Principle

The authority to do an act or acts of certain kind on behalf of another may be given by the court to a person here in after called a curator.

Article 2254 application for appointment

1) an application for the appointment of a curator may be made to the court by a relative or by the spouse of the person to be represented.

2) It may be made by no other person

Article 2255 Decision of the court

1) The court shall not grant the application unless the person to be represented is not in apposition to appoint

C. Authority Derived from the Law.

In most cases, the source of agency is authority of an agent derived from the agreement of the parties, that is, a bilateral agreement between a principal and an agent. Apart from this usual source, agency relationship could emanate from the operation of the law, that is, agency authority is derived from the law itself. Consequently, the consent of the principal has no role in creating the agency relationship and hence it is beyond the principal’s consent that agent –principal relationship comes into existence. This usually happens where a person to be represented is not in a poison to appoint his agent for one thing or another. Moreover, it is due to the necessity to safeguard the interest of the person to be represented. Further, agency is created by operation of the law, as opposed to agency created as a result of agreement of the principal and agent; there is already a single contract, that is, a contract which is concluded by the representative, on behalf of the one represented, with the third party. Hence, the internal relationship between the representative and the represented, in this case, is legal and not contractual since it is created by the operation to the law.

In spite of the legal relation created between the representative and the represented, the rights and duties arising there from are governed by the provision pertaining to agency contract once the law has established the relation.

Genesis and Development of the Law of Agency

The concept of agency representation in the sense it is understood now emerged around the twelfth century (A.D) along with the salve and slave owner’s relations. Since the early time, salves were considered as a mere chattel without any rights. It was logical to hold the owner legally liable for the acts of his slave, especially if the acts of the slave were done based on the direction of the slave owner. Hence this slave and slave owner relationship paved a way for the creation and the concept of representation. And during this time, the responsibility of a principal for the acts of his agent or servant was commenced.

The concept of agency developed independently in the civil and common law legal systems. However, the rudimentary rules of agency representation as it is understood today became visible in both legal systems around the end of the twelve-century and early thirteen centuries.

Although, the concept of agency representation appeared around the end of the 12th century, its rules came to be arranged and significant, in order to facilitate commercial centers in the 19th century. Where business activities widely spread in most parts of the world especially in Europe commercial transaction was highly developed in volumes. Owing to this reason the rules of agency started to be organized and collected from the various fields over which they were distributed. (Law of agency, Am. J: comp. law vol.6 (1957) pp.165)

In spite of its high development, the Roman law did not outgrow an overall theory of agency in their law of contract, and even ‘’it was utterly unknown in the early law of contracts and never in the entire history of the  Roman law did it reach the importance it has attained in the English law. During the time where the Romans were unaware about the theory of Agency, the English law of contract developed the theory in a complete manner and businessmen used to carry out their business activities through intermediaries or agents.

One among the main reasons why the Romans failed to develop a complete theory of agency representation in their contract law as that of the English law was that ‘’ the Romans never acknowledged a general rule of their private law which declared that a person acting as an intermediary should be capable of creating valid contractual or commercial relations between the principal and the third party.’’(W.Muler-Freinfels, Legal Relations in the Law of Agency: Power of Agency and Commercial certainty Am. J: comp.law V.13 1964 pp.195)

With respect to the importance of commercial activities in the Roman Empire and the distance between commercial centers and slow means of communication, the notion of agency representation was not well developed in their contracts law. Among the basic governing principles that was expressed in the roman contract law which has created the major obstacle for the rapid development of the modern concept of agency law was that “rights and liabilities were acquired or incurred only by the persons making the contract; third parties are not considered. To the old contracts like Manicipatio, cessio injure, and stipulatio, the doctrine of agency never applied. The formal ceremonious words employed to create such obligations bound only the persons who actually uttered them. It was the act of the individual, his solemn declaration that bound him, and according to the theory of the old Roman law one could not speak for another but only for oneself. (William L. Burdick, The principles of Roman Law and their relation to Modern Law, 1938, pp.424)

While the Roman law of agency representation was in its lower stage, the English law of agency contract was found in a higher stage and it was well developed. In relation to this, in the English law of contracts, the doctrine of principals and agent was based upon three elemental propositions. These were:

1. The creation by contract, express or implied of the relation,
2. The non liability of the agent for contracts made in the name of his principal, and
3. The liability of the principal for contracts made by his duly authorized agent.

According to this, when it is compared with the English law of contracts, the Roman law of contracts never developed the theory of agency to such an extent as the English law of contracts had achieved.

In order to have a broader concept on the genesis and development of the law of agency, let’s discuss the genesis and development of the law of agency in the following legal systems.

Theories and Development of the Law of Agency under the Common Law Legal System

The up-to-date concept of agency in the common law legal system is the outcome of many influences in its history. It is believed that agency was not part of the common law until the 13th century. However, owing to the master and servant relationships which emerged around the end of the12th century and beginning of 13th century.

While we discuss the historical development of the theory of agency in the common law legal system, we can observe that, three main standards gave raise to the effective development. These factors are:

1. The emergence of the class of attorneys in legal matters. Which were regulated by ordinance 1292
2. The impact of cannon law: and
3. Custom of merchants, which at that time was already engaged in lively trade in Europe, created the introduction of some concepts of agency.

Owing to the influence of mercantile law by which commercial activities were developed in volume, the common law developed the principle that a principal was in direct contractual relation with third parties in which such principle laid down the foundation for the theory of agency. The development of such principle makes the principal liable to third persons. This liability was with regards to the goods bought or acquired by the agent, on the basis of which the principal had thereby obtained the use and benefit of the goods.

The genesis of such principle, which makes the principal in direct contractual relationship with third parties in a contract made by his agent, emerged from the case of Costace V. Forteye, which was decided in 1389 by the major and elder men of the city of London. Under this particular case, an apprentice and attorney of a London merchant bought wine from a French merchant for his master (Fortenye); and when he failed to satisfy the full payment to the seller, the agent was committed to prison. However, the agent (apprentice) i.e. Costance, alleged that it was his master who sent him to buy the wine and then the master approved the bargain. The Mayor then ordered the master (defendant) to satisfy the full payment to the French seller and set the plaintiff free from prison. The decision of the Mayor was based on the ground that the apprentice bought for the use and benefit of the master. (Willam Holdsworth/sir/, A History of English Law vpl 8, 1966, pp223)

The point that we can understand from the above case is that, a direct claim by a third party was admitted against the principal for contracts made by his agent for the benefit of the principal.

The trend of being represented through an agent spread somehow readily in the course of the 12th and 13th centuries owing to the allied influence of mercantile necessity and cannon law. In addition to this the development of trading companies, which must necessarily act through agents, helped its further development.

In the medieval period, the idea that it is possible to make a contract through an agent, and that it is possible for a man to ratify for a contract made on his behalf through an agent was recognized by the common law. The common law also, accordingly, recognized that on such contracts by an agent on behalf of his principal, it was to be held that the principal and not the agent was liable ‘’ not only when the agent had express authority to do the particular acts, but also when he acted within the scope of an authority to do acts of a particular kind.’’(William Holds worth/sir/, A History of English Law vole 8, 1966, pp223)

During the 17th and 18th centuries two classes of agents emerged in Europe as a result of the influence of mercantile law, which was closely related with commercial law. These were brokers and factors.’’ Brokers were intermediaries, through whom two persons were brought into contractual relations, and in which they were also independent persons.’’ However, ‘’Factors were essentially employees of their master who deal more faithfully for their masters in buying and selling of all commodities or in moneys by exchange.’’

In line with the wide recognition of agency contracts in the common law, which grew in line with the rapid development of trade, a clear distinction between the relations of master and servant was made in order to distinguish from the relations of principal and agent. Accordingly, the agent does not work for the principal physically, nor is he subject to the control of the principal in his physical actions. (William Holdsworth/sir/, A History of English Law vole 8, 1966, pp223)

The servant, on the other hand, was recognized, as one who, by agreement, whether gratuitously or for reward, gives his service to another. He ‘’has no power to bind the master in contract and he works physically for another, subject to the control of the master.’’

Theories and Development of the Law of Agency under the Civil Law Legal System

(Law of Agency, Am. J: comp. law vol6 1957, pp135)

In comparison to the common law concept of agency, the institution of the modern concept of contractual agency emerged and developed slowly in the civil law legal system. While ‘’the Roman law of contract was, of course, found in its high scientific level, it never developed a complete theory of agency.

As it is mostly stated, among the major impediments that hampered the rapid development of the modern agency principles in the Roman law was ‘’ the nature of commercial contract which involves only two persons.’’ This principle which emphasized a strict personal tie between the contracting partiers was the governing rule of the old Roman contract law which did not admit the triangular relations of principal, agent and third party in business transactions.

In addition to the above factor, the reason that hindered the development of the evolution and the inadequacy of the outcome may have been due to the fact that, “business agents were often slaves and that within the family the law yielded family satisfaction results at quite an early stage of its history.’’(Barry Nichlsa, An introduction To the Roman Law, 1965, pp.201) Owing to this condition, any benefit or property accrued to the patter families (father or head of family)

The concept of agency started to develop in the Roman law, however, in the 15th and 16th centuries and slowly had to recognize the activities of the procurator in connection to theses two classes of persons.

What is a procurator? A procurator was a free man, often a freed slave who acted as agent for the interest of a noble family, while an instate was normally a slave who sold his master’s goods ‘’ (F.H.Lawson, The Roman Law Reader,(1969)p.103)

The pressure of mercantile needs in the middle ages, the influence of the cannon law contributed a considerable importance in the contractual agency development. And the remarkable feature resulting from the principal and agent liability in the early Roman law was that,’’ The freeman who acted as an agent, usually known as a procurator, became invariably liable to the third party and the agent with no connection between the principal and the third party.

In the earliest times, as stated above, owing to the personal nature of the roman law, a master or parent acquired the benefit of contracts entered into by slaves or sons, whether they contract in their own name or in his own name. But, even though he received the benefits derived from such contract, he was not held liable to the contacting third party. Nevertheless, at a certain point, in the historical development of the Roman’s the agency concept, holding masters liable for acts of their slaves or agents was observed.

Definition

The Law of agency is in most cases defined as the relationship between two persons, where one (the agent) may act on behalf of the other (principal) and bind the principal by words and actions .It is also defined as the relationship in which one person acts for or represents another by the latter’s authority, either in the relationship of principal and agent, master and servant, employer or proprietor and independent contractor. The law of agency could also be defined as the judiciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so as to act. (Black’s law dictionary, 1991)

Paul Mc Carthy has tried to partially capture the essence of agency by saying:

The law of agency deals with the ways in which one person, physical or juridical, can deal with other persons through the medium of intermediary. Of course one person may deal with another directly, without any assistance. However a person can perform only one thing and be in only one place at one time. The complexity of modern life, particularly in the commercial area, is such that the law must permit a person to make contracts and perform other juridical acts by a means of the representative. (Paul Mc Carthy, Materials for the study of the law of Agency and Business organizations, Faculty of Law, Haileslase I University, p.1)

In addition to the above, one writer, Mulgeta Mengist (2005 ) states the following; The concept of Agency is recognized in all modern legal systems as an indispensable part of the existing social order. It fulfills the most diverse functions in the public and private law of today; in particular it assists in organizing the division of labor in the national and international economy, by making it possible for a principal to extend his individual sphere of activity. By its aid spanning space and time, he is able to have one or more persons act for him, on his behalf, if necessary (the advantages of Agency) for the institution of modern life based on the division of labor, predominate to an extent that agency is every where prevalent .An agent is appointed when an individual is unable to act himself on account of his manifold occupations, absence, illness, advanced age, etc. Or a representative may be designated in order to take advantage of his special capacity, knowledge, and experience even for the mere desire, such as not to appear personally in order to avoid hostility, controversy, etc or similar considerations.

With regard to the concept and significance of the law of agency, two other writers stated as follows:

The purpose of the law of agency and the need to employ agents, to perform certain tasks which their principals have neither time; nor knowledge nor experience to perform by themselves scarcely requires explanation in the highly commercial and industrialized world. Commerce would literally come to a standstill if businessmen and merchants could not employ the services of factors, brokers, forwarding agents estate agents auctioneers and the like and were expected to do everything by themselves. These specialized middle men, whose main purpose usually is to make contracts on behalf of their principals or to dispose of their principal’s property, are to be found in all advanced societies and, whether one accepts or deplores some of the economic consequences of this phenomenon, the fact is that the agent’s activities are an inevitable feature of a developed economy. Hence the growth of the law of agency, both in volume and sophistication, has matched the growth in importance of commerce, as we know it today^{.  (Markesinis and Munday, pp.3-4)}

Defining the concepts in the law of agency in the above way may not be enough and appropriately reflect the whole concept of the law. Two writers provide the inconveniences with defining disciplines or concepts in very few words in the following manner:

They argue that definitions may be of use and, at times are quite necessary when contracts or statutory enactments have to be construed, for in such cases they can help define the terms used in the documents. But they are of doubtful validity in books or lecture courses, they can also be misleading, especially if they attempt to compress the entire subject under consideration into a single sentence, which is intended to be both concise and meaningful. This is also true with the law of agency where academics have been quick to criticize each other’s definitions and find in them errors and omissions. There is, therefore, no justification for yet other definitions, which, more likely than not, will prove unsatisfactory.

In ancient Roman law, for a contract to exist between two persons, both of them should be personally and physically present. Conclusions of contracts were like a ceremony, which was made by adhering to certain formalities and including some words to say repeating. So many reasons have been given to justify the absence of the concept of representation (Agency) in the Roman law. One of the explanations attributes to the roman conception of the personal nature of obligation. The personal nature of obligation under this legal system is closely related with the strict formalities of the Roman law. With regard to the formation of legal relationships, the Romans attached special significance to formal ceremonies in which certain acts were performed and solemn words repeated. Owing to this reason, the law refused to grant rights and duties on a person who did not actually participate in such ceremonies and fulfill the required formalities. Hence the Maxim, aleri stipulario nemo potest, excluded stipulations in the name of third party and stipulations for the benefit of a third party. The other view that holds for the absence of agency in the Roman law was owing to the patriarchal economy of the Romans. This economy was least developed, and almost all business transactions were limited within the family. Hence it is possible to infer that there was no need for the institution of agency.

The above principle had served the then society of Rom. However, as time went by, situations forced the Romans to recognize the principle of ‘’one who acts through another acts for himself.“ As a result, contracts were started to be formed between individuals, even in the absence of the contracting parties in certain places. ^{(B.S. Markesinis and R.J.C Munday, pp.3, 1986,)}

Nowadays, one who could not appear personally to conclude a contract could appoint a delegate or representative. Hence what the representative performs could be taken as an act done by the person representing the former. Agency in this case is hence stated as the relationship between two persons in which one of them (the representative or the agent) has the power or authority to represent and act on behalf of the other (the principal) in legal transactions. This partially captures the essence of agency.

We have been discussing the definition and some concepts related to the definition of the law of agency or representation. And now let us see the rational behind the institution of the law of agency.

Why law of Agency?

The concept of agency reduces the cost of contracting. Though it increases the number of parties and transactions, it has made possible for individuals to utilize the services of others in accomplishing, for more than could be done by their unaided efforts. By contracting through an agent, the principal may reduce the cost of spatial and cultural distances, the need to acquire expertise, and the inconvenience of having to deal personally with all contracting parties. In the same manner, agency reduces the cost of internal organization and so indirectly the costs of contracting by facilitating specialization of function and expanding the scares resources of time, energy and knowledge available to the principal. In here not only does the principal benefits, but so does his contracting partner (The third party in agency law) who would otherwise bear some of the principals higher contracting costs in a less favorable contract price. In this case, the agent also benefits from the principal through compensation.

In a nutshell, the following points can best elaborate the need for having an agent acting on behalf of someone.

1. The need to overcome time and space limitation: one person may wish to perform several transactions at the same time. However, he could be in a position where he is unable to run these several activities by himself at one instance, for he is at one specific place (space) at one time. He cannot be at different places (spaces) at one instance (time); for this reason, he/she may want another individual to act on his behalf. In this case the concept of representation comes into view. The inability of a person to be at different places at the same time can thus be solved by agency representation.
2. The need to overcome limitations of knowledge and skill

Performing one or more activities may demand certain skills or knowledge. Hence one may lack the required knowledge in performing a certain activity. Hence, another individual who has the required skill may act on behalf of the person who has no such expertise in performing the duty.

1. The need to represent legal persons

Legal personality is endowed to non-living entities. Thus, after acquiring the legal personality these entities will have the right to exercise all activities that a legal person can do. For instance, they can sue and be sued, administer property etc, to conclude a valid contract and to transact with 3^rd parties etc. However, these entities don’t have mental capabilities to analyze the cost and benefit of their transaction because they don’t have minds like human beings. Hence, they need an agent to act on behalf of them. The manger of a business organization, for example, is considered as an agent through which any dealings with a third party is concluded.

From the above discussion, we can understand that an agent can act on representing legal persons to exercise rights and duties that a certain legal person enjoys. It is through the agent (human being) that a certain legal person enjoys its rights and performs its duties.

2. The Need to overcome in-capacities

The Ethiopian civil code provides that capacity is required in order to perform a juridical act. Certain category of people like minors (below the age of 18) and interdicted people can not have the appropriate analytical capacity in order to enter into a juridical act. Hence they may fail to analyze the cost and benefit of the transaction. Hence some one else who can act on behalf of them is appointed.