58 The law of agency.

account of the broker's default, he cannot recover any

remuneration ; nor can he in such a case recover any-

thing for expenses which he may have been put to, unless

such expenses are unusual and have been incurred in

consequence of the shipowner having urged him to

extraordinary expedition in the matter.

Barnett v. Isaacson (1887), 4 T. L. R. 645 ; here the de-

fendant promised by letter that he would pay the plaintiff

a commission of ВЈ5000 if he would introduce him to some

person who would purchase his business : the plaintiff failed

to find a purchaser, and so he introduced the defendant to

an accountant who he thouo-ht mi^ht be able to effect

what he (the plaintiff) had failed to do. The accountant

subsequently bought the business himself; whereupon the

plaintiff' sued the defendant, to recover some remuneration

for his introduction ; but the Court of Appeal held that

he was not entitled to recover anything. In giving judg-

ment, Esher, M.R., said; "To entitle a plaintiff to sue upon

a "quantum meruit," the rule is, that if the plaintiff relied

upon the acceptance by the defendant of something he had

done, he must have done it under circumstances which led

the defendant to know that if he (the defendant) accepted

what had been done it was on the terms that he must

pay for it. The acceptance of the introduction here did

not take place under such circumstances that the defendant

must pay for it. Neither party ever thought that it was

to be paid for."

But of course an agent may be entitled to recover upon

a " quantum meruit," by reason of express or implied

agreement, or in cases where the principal himself revokes

the authority.

Simpson v. Lainh (185G), 17 C. ll G03, k 25 L. J. C. P.

113; Liorc it was held that it was not competent for a

principal to lovokc tlic authority of his agent without

paying for labour and expense incurred by him in the

BIGHTS OF AN AGENT AGAINST HIS PRINCIPAL. 59

course of his employment ; and that the right of the

agent to be reimbursed depended on the terms of the agree-

ment. A general employment might carry with it a power

of revocation on payment only of a compensation for what

had been done under it ; but that there might be a qualified

employment under which no payment could be demanded

If the authority was revoked.

Farthing v. Tonkins (1893), 9 T. L. E. 5G6 ; here an

architect had been employed to make plans and specifica-

tions for a certain building which it was proposed to erect ;

but which, ultimately, though through no fault of the

architect, it was decided not to erect. The Court held that

the architect was not entitled to charge commission on the

estimated cost of the building ; but that he was entitled to

a reasonable remuneration for the plans and specifications.

Whenever there is an express contract which makes no

provision for the recovery of remuneration upon a "quantum

meruit," the agent cannot recover upon an implied contract.

Lott V. Outhivctite (1893), 10 T. L. R. 76. C. A.; here

Lindley, L. J., said ; " It was said that there was an implied

contract to pay the agent a " quantum meruit " for his

services. The answer was that there could be no implied

contract when there was an express contract."