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
