有關agent同佢既principal問題

I am afraid 001 got the crux of the problem entirely wrong.

This is obviously a commericial case, as opposed to a criminal case. Obviously C is only interested in getting back his money but not in whether A gets criminally sanctioned.

It is obvious that the Apparent Authority doctrine is involved. According to Rama Corpn, apparent authority is a form of estoppel which consists of 3 ingredients: (i) representation by the principal (B); (ii) C's reliance on the representation; (iii) an alteration of C's position resulting from such reliance.

It is said that apparent authority can be invoked to extend an agent's authority beyond termination of the agency relationship. One such case is AMB General Holding, where the agent resigned as director of the principal company but was held to have apparent authority to bind the company to arbitration proceedings after his resignation because of a general representation from his appointment as director that he had all the usual authority of the post.

In the current scenario, B did represent that A is his agent who deals with C on B's behalf. In the last transaction, C did rely on B's representation and sold goods to A. If C knew that A was sacked, they would not have sold him the goods (I assume so, since this is commercial sense). Therefore, there is alteration of position.

Hence, I think A does have apparent authority to bind B. However, in each ingredient you need to make more in-depth arguments than the ones I give you.

Having established apparent authority, C can elect to sue B for the contract price. Otherwise C can sue A for conversion, but since A has disappeared, C would be ill-adviced to do so.

根據你所描述，C唔可以告B公司。因為B公司根本無取別人的貨！如果A真的帶埋C的貨「走左佬」， C可以報警拉拒。

根據香港法例210章<盜竊罪條例>第7條意圖永久地剝奪他人財產
(1)任何人挪佔屬於另一人的財產，雖無意使該另一人永久地失去該東西，但如他不顧該另一人的權利而意圖將該東西視為自己的東西處置，則仍須視為意圖永久地剝奪他人財產；而且，如該財產是借入或借出的，而借入或借出的期間及情況相等於將該財產徹底取走或處置，如果是並僅如果是如此，則如此借入或借出該財產，亦可相當於不顧另一人的權利而將該財產視為自己的財產處置。

(2)在以不損害第(1)款的概括性為原則下，凡任何人管有或控制(不論是否合法地管有或控制)屬於另一人的財產，而為他自己的目的及未得該另一人授權，在未必能履行將該財產歸還的條件下放棄該財產，即相當於不顧該另一人的權利而將財產視為自己的財產處置。

根據香港法例210章<盜竊罪條例>第17條以欺騙手段取得財產
(1) 任何人以欺騙手段(不論該欺騙手段是否唯一或主要誘因)而不誠實地取得屬於另一人的財產，意圖永久地剝奪該另一人的財產，即屬犯罪，循公訴程序定罪後，可處監禁10年。
(2) 就本條而言，如任何人取得財產的擁有權、管有權或控制權，即視為取得該財產，而“取得”(obtain) 包括為另一人取得或使另一人能夠取得或保有。
(3) 第7條在挪佔一詞作出必要的修改後，須為本條的施行而適用，猶如該條為第2條的施行而適用一樣。
(4) 就本條而言─
“欺騙手段”(deception) 指就事實或法律而以語言文字或行為(不論是以任何作為或不作為)作出的任何欺騙手段(不論是蓄意或是罔顧後果)，包括與過去、現在或將來有關的欺騙手段，以及與使用該欺騙手段的人或任何其他人的意圖有關的欺騙手段。

A真的帶埋C的貨「走左佬」，已犯了上述的法例！