Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 25


     
     1        starts at 798.  My Lord, I will not read that page.  I will
     2        start, if I may, at the bottom page 798, last sentence:
     3
     4             "There a man we are not to the offices of an
     5             insurance company and spoke to someone who
     6             appeared to be...."
     7
     8   MS. STEEL:   Where are we?
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  I will read the complete paragraph, bottom of 798:
    11
    12             "We have been referred to a number of cases but
    13             none of them that I can see really covers this
    14             point except a case in New Brunswick under the
    15             title Chapman v. Delaware Mutual Insurance
    16             Company.  That case, which of course is only
    17             persuasive authority, is in many respects
    18             similar to the present case.  There a man went
    19             to the offices of an insurance company and spoke
    20             to someone who appeared to be, and was said to
    21             be, the president, and the court there held that
    22             that was some evidence, some prima facie
    23             evidence that the person with whom he was
    24             talking was the president of the company.  It
    25             must depend on all the circumstances of the
    26             case, and of course if you were talking to the
    27             office boy and he says he is the president of
    28             the company, that cannot be any evidence at
    29             all.
    30                  So far as the second interview is
    31             concerned, the position is very much stronger,
    32             because having left the schedule with the
    33             alleged depot manager four days later a man
    34             turns up claiming to be the representative of
    35             the company to discuss the matter.  Of course,
    36             it is possible that some stranger in the street
    37             overheard it or saw the schedule and came along
    38             pretending he was the representative of the
    39             company; it is possible that the office boy of
    40             the company himself had seen the schedule and
    41             went along, but there is material there from
    42             which one can infer that the alleged
    43             representative who came along was indeed the
    44             representative of the company.
    45                  So far as the second question is concerned,
    46             whether either of these agents were authorised
    47             to make statements or admissions on behalf of
    48             the company, that must depend on all the
    49             circumstances and the status of the person
    50             concerned.  I am quite satisfied the depot 
    51             manager in charge of the depot is of that 
    52             status.  In so far as the second interview is 
    53             concerned, the representative on this basis is
    54             the agent of the company, was coming along
    55             having had the schedule and the clear inference
    56             is that he was authorised by the company to
    57             discuss the matter."
    58
    59        I will stop there in the judgment of the Lord Chief Justice
    60        and go, if I may, to the judgment of Havers J. on

Prev Next Index