Parke-Bernet Galleries, acting as agent for an undisclosed principal, sold a painting to Weisz. Weisz laterdiscovered that the painting was a forgery and sued Parke-Bernet for breach of contract. In defense, Parke-Bernet argued that as a general rule, agents are not liable on contracts made for principals. Is this a gooddefense? Explain.

Question

Reuben Skinner

Business

28 January, 20:24

Parke-Bernet Galleries, acting as agent for an undisclosed principal, sold a painting to Weisz. Weisz laterdiscovered that the painting was a forgery and sued Parke-Bernet for breach of contract. In defense, Parke-Bernet argued that as a general rule, agents are not liable on contracts made for principals. Is this a gooddefense? Explain.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Shane Robinson · Answer 1

Answer:No, this is not a good defense

Explanation:

An agent is a person acting on behalf of a principal as regards contract relationship for which the principal will be liable provided the agent adhere to.

Disclosure of principal The identity of the principal must be fully disclosed at the time of contract.

The non disclosure of the principal will make the contracting party believe he his dealing with the agent and for any breach thereon the agent will be liable.

In the above scenario the principal was not disclose and this makes Parke Bennet liable.