Information Management

In this case in which we are discussing it is unclear to whether Dean, a trainee consultant was left in charge of the firm Pyret and Pyret, while both of the firm’s partners were away on a three day conference. During this time of absence, the firm’s computer network crashed and after two days of Dean trying to contact the partners he asked a computer repair engineer to come in and repair the computer network. The engineer told Dean it would be better to replace the system rather than repair it as it would be a similar price. Dean went along with this acting on behalf of the firm.

On return, the two partners were not happy with this and have refused to pay the bill. They have asked us our legal opinion and to identify the main issues and outline the legal principles that surround them.

A number of issues have arisen in relation to whether Pyret and Pyret are liable to pay the bill to the engineer, and whether Dean was liable in relation to the control of the firm, when the partners were absent. In this essay we have discussed both sides of the argument. Whether Dean is classified as an agent of necessity, or whether Dean had the authority to undergo the contract with the engineer.

Firstly, we see that a valid contract for service existed between Dean and the engineer. A contract for service is a contract between two entities that binds them together for a definite period of time for a specific objective.^[1] Under the Sale of Goods and Supply of Service Act 1980, the supplier must have necessary skill to render the service and that the supplier will supply the services with care and diligence and act in good faith on behalf of the customer.^[2] In this case the computer engineer informed Dean that it would be better to replace the computer system rather than repair it.

In our opinion Dean could be considered an agent. An agent is someone who has been given the authority on behalf of another person, who is called the principal. In this case Pyret and Pyret is the principal and Dean is considered the agent.^[3]  We are classifying Dean as an agent of necessity. This is where the law will automatically confer an authority on one person to act as the agent of another, without requiring the principal’s consent. This law protects the agent’s actions where they were carried out in reasonable manner to protect the interest of the company.^[4] In this case Dean acts in good faith of the company and not on his behalf. There was outstanding client work that couldn’t have been completed without the new network system so in this case Dean thought he was acting appropriately on behalf of the company as it was an emergency when the network crashed.

In Walsh v Bord Iascaigh Mhara (1981) a trawler began to drift towards rocks n stormy conditions. A distress signal was transmitted and the crew of the Valentia lifeboat responded to it. They took action and towed the trawler to safety. The plaintiffs claimed for a salvage award. Although the plaintiffs could not obtain the defendants instructions they had taken action to protect the defendant’s best interest. Therefore the plaintiffs deemed to be agents of necessity. Similar to our case, Dean is acting in the firms best interest by getting the network system replaced so that client work could be completed.^[5]