Can anyone explain how do we identify in these examples that the agent appointed is substituted agent and not a sub agent

Avni · 26 Aug 2025

Okk thank you so much

Tapash · 26 Aug 2025

1. Who is the appointed person actually working for? If they are working for the principal (A) directly → Substituted agent. If they are working under the original agent (B) → Sub-agent. 2. Who is controlling their actions? If B controls them day-to-day → Sub-agent. If B only introduced or appointed them, but they take instructions from A → Substituted agent. 3. Who is responsible for their mistakes? If A can blame B for that person’s mistakes → Sub-agent. If A cannot blame B and can only blame the appointed person → Substituted agent. --- Example 21 (from your book): A asks B to recover money. B hires a solicitor. After hiring, the solicitor works for A, not for B. If the solicitor makes a mistake, A cannot blame B. This makes the solicitor a substituted agent. If it were a sub-agent case: B would keep controlling that person, like telling them exactly what to do and how to do it. Then A could hold B responsible for that sub-agent’s mistakes. --- Key line to remember: A substituted agent is like a specialist introduced to the principal by the agent, but the specialist starts working for the principal directly, not under the agent’s control.