In Liverpool, was bound to employ the plaintiifs as his sole

agents in such business, in the absence of express agreement,

there could not be an implied condition compelling the

defendants to carry on their business for seven years ; and

that under the circumstances the defendants were not

guilty of a breach of contract in ceasing to employ the

plaintiffs.

Tiivncr v. Goldsmith (1891), 1 Q. B. D. 544 ; here the

defendant, a shirt manufacturer, agreed to employ the

plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to serve the defendant as

his agent and traveller for five years, at a commission, to

sell the various goods manufactured or sold by the de-

fendant, that should be from time to time forwarded or

submitted by sample or pattern to him, at list price, to

good and substantial customers. After about two years

the defendant's manufactory was burnt down : he did not

resume business, and thenceforth ceased to employ the

plaintiff, who brought an action against him for breach of

contract.

The Court of Appeal held that as there had been an

express contract to employ the plaintiff for five years, and

as, from the facts of the case, the parties could not be taken

to have contemplated the continuance of defendant's manu-

factory as the foundation of the employment, the defendant

was not excused from fulfilling the agreement by the

destruction of his manufactory, but was guilty of a breach

of contract in ceasing to employ the plaintiff.

140 The law of agency.

It seems upon comparing the two above cases, that the

real distinction between them is, that in Bhodes v. Forwood

the principal had only bound himself to employ the agent

In a particular business at a particular place, without in

any way binding himself to carry on such business longer

than he chose ; while in Turner v. Goldsm ItJt the principal

had bound himself to employ the agent unconditionally for

a definite period.

We sometimes find cases where there is an agreement on

the part of the agent to serve, without there being any

agreement on the part of the principal to employ.

Burton V. The Great Northern Raihuay Coin2Xiny (1854)),

9 Ex. 507 ; here the plantifF agreed, on October 1st, 1851, to

convey between certain places all merchandise presented to

him for that purpose, for five shillings per ton : the agree-

ment to continue in force for twelve months. Plaintiff

bought waggons and horses and began to carry under the

agreement. On the 18th of March of the same year, the

plantifi" received notice that the agreement would cease

from the following 1st of April. It was decided that the

carrier was merely agent to carry such merchandise as was

presented to him, but that the defendants were not under

any liability to present merchandise for carriage ; and that

therefore no part of the contract had been violated.

An Authority Coupled with an Interest. — When a

princii)al has given an agent an authority coupled with an