Yonge v Toynbee

As a result, the plaintiff's legal action was struck out by the court by the defendant and then sought costs from W and Sons on the basis that they had no [[Right|legal authority]] to represent the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was insane, even though they had no knowledge at the time. The defendant was not legally liable for the costs because of the plaintiff's insanity.

As a result, the plaintiff's legal action was struck out by the court by the defendant and then sought costs from W and Sons on the basis that they had no [[Right|legal authority]] to represent the plaintiff, as the plaintiff was insane, even though they had no knowledge at the time. The defendant was not legally liable for the costs because of the plaintiff's insanity.

In August 1908, Toynbee retained Wontner & Sons to represent him in a defamation action. However, shortly afterward, he was certified as a person of unsound mind. His solicitors were not made aware of his mental incapacity until 1909. Despite this, they continued to represent him in the ongoing legal proceedings.

==Decision==

==Decision==

The defendant's lawyers were liable for costs, as their implied agency to act on the behalf of their defendant ended with the insanity of the plaintiff.

The court ruled that the defendant's lawyers, W & Sons, were liable for the costs, as their implied authority to act on behalf of their client ended with the plaintiff’s insanity. This case established that an agent’s authority (in this case, a solicitor) ceases when the principal becomes legally insane, even if the agent is unaware of the principal’s condition. It underscored the importance of the principal's mental capacity in determining the validity of agency relationships and the binding nature of contracts.<ref>https://vlex.co.uk/vid/yonge-v-toynbee-807421293</ref>

[[Category:English contract case law]]

[[Category:English contract case law]]