Sub-Agents: Trusting the Trustworthy (or Not)

Sub-agency is a balancing act of trust, responsibility, and accountability.

Sub-Agents: Trusting the Trustworthy (or Not)

Sub-agency is a balancing act of trust, responsibility, and accountability.

Photo by Brenan Greene on Unsplash

Imagine you’re entrusted to deliver a pizza, but instead, you pass it on to a friend to handle the delivery. That friend then eats the pizza. Who’s responsible for the pepperoni disaster? This, my friends, is the crux of sub-agency under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Let’s slice through the provisions of sub-agents, delegation, and liability.


When Can an Agent Delegate?

Section 190: Delegation Forbidden — Except Sometimes

The golden rule is simple: an agent cannot delegate their duties. Why? Because the principal trusts the agent personally.
Exceptions: Delegation is permissible when:

  1. Custom of Trade: Delegation is standard in the industry (e.g., employing clerks in a law firm).
  2. Necessity: The nature of the agency requires it (e.g., hiring an auctioneer for property sales).

Example:
A hires B to design a wedding dress. B, being a designer, cannot pass the job to C, an intern, unless it’s standard practice. Otherwise, B is the one on the hook for bridezilla’s wrath.


Who is a Sub-Agent?

Section 191: Sub-Agent Defined

A sub-agent is someone hired by the agent, working under the agent’s control, to assist in the agency’s business. Think of them as the agent’s assistant, not a direct employee of the principal.


Principal’s Relationship with Sub-Agents

Section 192: When Sub-Agents are Properly Appointed

If the sub-agent is hired lawfully:

  • The principal is bound by the sub-agent’s actions, as though they directly hired the sub-agent.
  • The agent, however, remains responsible for the sub-agent’s actions to the principal.
  • The sub-agent is accountable to the agent but not directly to the principal (unless there’s fraud or intentional wrongdoing).

Example:
A (principal) appoints B (agent) to recover debts. B hires C (sub-agent). If C fraudulently pockets money, B is responsible to A. However, A can directly sue C for the fraud.

Section 193: Unauthorized Sub-Agent Appointments

If the agent appoints a sub-agent without the authority to do so:

  • The agent takes on the role of the principal for the sub-agent.
  • The original principal is not responsible for the sub-agent’s actions.

Illustration:
B hires D without informing A. D botches the work. Here, A can sue B, but D is B’s headache.


Not All Delegations are Sub-Agencies

Section 194: Direct Agents vs. Sub-Agents

When an agent is authorized to name someone to act for the principal, that person becomes the principal’s agent, not a sub-agent.

Illustration:
A tells B to sell his house and hire an auctioneer. B hires C. Here, C acts as A’s agent, not a sub-agent.


Duty of Prudence in Selecting Sub-Agents

Section 195: Agent’s Duty in Appointing Another Agent

An agent must act with the prudence of a reasonable person when selecting someone for the principal. If due diligence is exercised, the agent isn’t liable for the other person’s negligence.

Illustrations:

  1. A instructs B to buy a ship. B hires a qualified surveyor to inspect the ship. If the surveyor negligently approves a sinking ship, B is not liable.
  2. A consigns goods to B, who hires a reputable auctioneer. If the auctioneer absconds with the money, B isn’t responsible.

Key Takeaways

  1. Delegation Isn’t a Free Pass: An agent can’t shirk duties unless custom or necessity demands it.
  2. Principal-Agent Chain: Sub-agents bind the principal only if they’re lawfully appointed.
  3. Accountability Web: The agent is responsible for the sub-agent, while the sub-agent answers to the agent — unless they’ve committed fraud.
  4. Prudence is Paramount: Agents must act wisely in selecting others; otherwise, liability can boomerang back.

The Final Slice

Sub-agency is a balancing act of trust, responsibility, and accountability. Delegating tasks is fine — just don’t hand over the pizza to someone who might eat it! When done right, the principal and agent’s relationship thrives. When done wrong, it’s a legal mess of half-eaten pizzas and finger-pointing.