Reference no: EM133477950
Assignment:
Europea Gallery is an art dealer with offices in Singapore, London, Paris, Hong Kong and Brussels. On 1st December (last year), it formally appointed Mark as its agent in Singapore to source for paintings by Singapore artists.
On 15th January (this year), Singapura Stars, an art gallery in Singapore, emailed Europea Gallery and said that they have been approached by Mark. Singapura Stars wanted to verify the identity of Mark and confirm that he was indeed acting for Europea Gallery. Within a few days, Europea Gallery issued a letter to Singapura Stars, stating that "Mark Lewis is our duly authorized and appointed agent to source for all types of paintings." Due to Europea Gallery's hurry to issue the letter, the letter had inaccurately stated that Mark had the authority to source for "all types of paintings", instead of just "paintings by Singapore artists".
Later that month, Mark, purporting to act on behalf of Europea Gallery, signed a contract with Singapura Stars to purchase a painting by a European artist, for $500,000. On the same day, Mark visited Jane and sold this painting to her for $750,000. He did not mention to Jane that he was an agent of Europea Gallery. Instead, he provided his personal banking account details to Jane and told her that the payment for the painting could be transferred directly into his personal banking account.
- Discuss two possible forms of authority which Mark possessed, as an agent of Europea Gallery. Support your answer with specific examples based on the above scenario.
- Is the contract that was signed by Mark (with Singapura Stars) valid and binding on Europea Gallery? Why?
- Explain whether Mark has breached any duties as an agent of Europea Gallery. Support your answer with specific examples based on the above scenario.