1. The concept of an agent's “usual” authority is important in ascertaining the extent of the agent's actual and apparent authority.
2. The contention that in English law a principal can be liable in contract for the acts of an agent exceeding the latter's actual and apparent authority as agent depends on a statement of principle by Wills J. in Watteau v. Fenwick. This statement is supported neither by the previous cases nor by Wills J.'s reasoning.
3. Edmunds v. Bushell & Jones, Watteau v. Fenwick and Kinahan & Co. Ltd. v. Parry are all cases in which the agent was held out by the principal as having the authority of a principal and owner of a business; as these cases rest on apparent ownership the principal should be merely precluded from denying that the agent is owner of the assets of the business, and these cases cannot be justified in so far as they impose a more extensive personal liability on the true principal and owner.
4. Although a particular managing director of a company may have a “usual” authority, he does not have a “usual” authority which is common to all other managing directors of all other companies.