Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to right sidebar Skip to footer
Choose language:

Tag: Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se

Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se

Definition
The Latin maxim “Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se” translates to “He who acts through another acts himself.” This principle is fundamental to the doctrines of agency and vicarious liability, holding that a person who delegates actions to another is responsible for the outcome of those actions as though they performed them themselves.

Historical Origin

This maxim originated in Roman law, emphasizing the principle of representation. Roman legal systems recognized the concept of “mandatum,” where a principal could act through an agent, and the agent’s acts would bind the principal.
In English common law, the maxim was embraced and developed further. It became a cornerstone of agency law, where the actions of an agent legally bind the principal, and of vicarious liability, where employers are held accountable for acts done by employees in the course of employment. These principles have since been integrated into modern legal systems, including India.

Scope and Objective

Scope

The maxim applies to both civil and criminal liability:

  1. Agency Law: Acts performed by an agent on behalf of a principal are considered as if done by the principal themselves.
  2. Vicarious Liability: Employers and other principals are held liable for wrongful acts of their employees or agents if those acts are within the scope of their duties.
  3. Tort Law: Liability arises for wrongful acts committed by others under one’s authority.
  4. Criminal Law: Under certain circumstances, principals may be held criminally liable for acts committed by their agents.

Objective

The principle ensures accountability by holding the delegator (principal) responsible for actions performed under their authority. This:

  • Encourages responsible delegation of tasks.
  • Protects third parties by ensuring they have recourse against principals with greater control and resources.
  • Strengthens commercial and organizational structures by clarifying the extent of liabilities.

Advantages

  1. Accountability
  • Ensures principals cannot evade liability by acting through intermediaries, fostering responsible management and delegation.
  1. Protection of Third Parties
  • Third parties dealing with agents are safeguarded as they can rely on the principal for remedies.
  1. Efficient Legal Remedies
  • Provides clarity in establishing liability, facilitating quicker resolution of disputes.
  1. Encourages Supervision
  • Compels employers and principals to monitor the actions of their agents and employees effectively.

Disadvantages

  1. Overreach of Liability
  • Principals may be held liable for acts they did not directly authorize or intend.
  1. Exploitation by Agents
  • Dishonest agents could misuse their authority, leading to liability for the principal.
  1. Ambiguity in Scope
  • Determining whether an act was within the “scope of authority” can be challenging, leading to legal disputes.
  1. Economic Burden
  • Employers and businesses may face heavy financial burdens due to wrongful acts of employees.

Indian Acts Relating to the Maxim

  1. Indian Contract Act, 1872
  • Section 182: Defines an agent and principal relationship.
  • Section 188: The authority of the agent binds the principal.
  • Section 226: The principal is liable for the acts of the agent done within the scope of authority.
  1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 149: Every member of an unlawful assembly is held liable for acts done in prosecution of a common object.
  • Section 34: Joint liability for criminal acts performed with a common intention.
  1. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
  • Section 146: Liability of the owner of a vehicle for damages caused by the driver while on duty.
  1. Factories Act, 1948
  • Employers are held accountable for acts of their employees regarding health, safety, and welfare violations.

Notable Case Laws

1. State Bank of India v. Shyama Devi (1978)

  • Facts: An agent of the bank misappropriated money deposited by the respondent.
  • Judgment: The Supreme Court held the bank (principal) liable for the agent’s actions within the course of employment.
  • Principle: The wrongful act of the agent was binding on the principal.

2. Lloyd v. Grace, Smith & Co. (1912)

  • Facts: An agent fraudulently obtained property from a client and transferred it for personal benefit.
  • Judgment: The principal was held liable even though the fraud benefited only the agent.
  • Principle: The act was done within the agent’s apparent authority, binding the principal.

3. Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking v. Basanti Devi (1999)

  • Facts: An employee’s negligence caused an accident, leading to the respondent’s injury.
  • Judgment: The employer (DESU) was held liable for the employee’s negligence.
  • Principle: The employer was vicariously liable for acts done in the course of employment.

4. Pushpabai Parshottam Udeshi v. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing Co. (1977)

  • Facts: A driver’s negligent act caused a fatal accident.
  • Judgment: The employer was held liable as the driver was acting in the course of employment.
  • Principle: The maxim applies to vicarious liability for negligence.

5. R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration (1962)

  • Facts: An agent of the accused company committed criminal breach of trust.
  • Judgment: The principal (Dalmia) was held liable as the agent acted on his instructions.
  • Principle: Criminal liability can extend to the principal under this maxim.

Conclusion

The maxim “Qui Facit Per Alium Facit Per Se” is a cornerstone of legal doctrines that govern agency and vicarious liability. It promotes accountability and safeguards third parties, ensuring that principals cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for actions performed on their behalf. However, its application requires careful assessment of the scope of authority and intent to prevent misuse or excessive liability. Indian law incorporates this principle across various legislations and judicial decisions, reflecting its enduring relevance in balancing fairness, responsibility, and justice.