Goldberg V Jenkins 6f2u4z

Goldberg v Jenkins (1889)

 A partner borrowed money on behalf of the firm at over 60% interest when the comparable rates were 6% - 10%  Held: such borrowing was ‘beyond the usual’ way of the firm and thus firm not bound  Reason: the partner would have been able to obtain loans within rates of 6% -10% and looking at 60% - the person lending money on those knows that the person borrowing is not conducting an ordinary business transaction.

Hamlyn -v- John Houston & Co 

Houston, a partner in the firm, obtained confidential information on the plaintiff Hamlyn's business by bribing one of Hamlyn's employees. Held: The firm was liable for the loss suffered by Hamlyn. If it was within the scope of Houston's authority to obtain the information by legitimate means, then for the purpose of vicarious liability it was within the scope of his authority to obtain it by illegitimate means and the firm was liable accordingly. This was on the broad 'risk' principle: the principal having selected the agent, and being the person who will have the benefit of his efforts if successful, it is not unjust he should bear the risk of the agent 'exceeding his authority in matters incidental to the doing of the acts the performance of which has been delegated to him'.

Goldberg v Jenkins (1889)

Rakan kongsi A ➢meminjam wang bagi pihak firma itu lebih daripada 60% faedah apabila kadar setanding adalah 6% - 10% ➢Dipegang: pinjaman tersebut adalah 'luar biasa' cara firma dan oleh itu firma tidak terikat ➢Sebab: rakan kongsi yang telah mampu untuk mendapatkan pinjaman dalam kadar 6%-10% dan melihat 60% - orang pinjaman wang atas terma-terma tersebut mengetahui bahawa orang yang meminjam sedang menjalankan sesuatu urus niaga biasa perniagaan. Hamlyn -v- John Houston & Co 

Houston, a partner in the firm, obtained confidential information on the plaintiff Hamlyn's business by bribing one of Hamlyn's employees. Held: The firm was liable for the loss suffered by Hamlyn. If it was within the scope of Houston's authority to obtain the information by legitimate means, then for the purpose of vicarious liability it was within the scope of his authority to obtain it by illegitimate means and the firm was liable accordingly. This was on the broad 'risk' principle: the principal having selected the agent, and being the person who will have the benefit of his efforts if successful, it is not unjust he should bear the risk of the agent 'exceeding his authority in matters incidental to the doing of the acts the performance of which has been delegated to him'.

•Houston, seorang rakan dalam firma itu, diperolehi maklumat sulit plaintif perniagaan di Hamlyn oleh bribing salah satu kakitangan Hamlyn di. Diadakan: Firma adalah bertanggungjawab ke atas kerugian yang dialami oleh Hamlyn. Jika ia berada di dalam skop Houston kuasa untuk mendapatkan maklumat dengan cara yang sah, kemudian bagi liabiliti Abrams ia berada di dalam skop kuasanya untuk mendapatkan dengan cara nikah dan firma adalah bertanggungan dengan sewajarnya. Ini adalah prinsip umum 'risiko': Pengetua mempunyai dipilih ejen, dan sebagai orang yang akan mendapat manfaat daripada usaha beliau jika berjaya, ia tidak adil beliau perlu menanggung risiko yang ejen 'melebihi kuasanya dalam

perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan melakukan tindakan prestasi yang telah diberikan kepadanya'.