Our client provided estimates to company A for work on 2 trailers, did the work, charged the amount in the estimate, and got paid.
Our client then provided:
- some consulting services in relation to 3 more trailers, so the manufacturer, company B, could do some of the work themselves;
- but when the trailers were delivered to company A’s premises, a lot of work was defective or not carried out and so our client fixed the trailers.
Our client, believing he was only dealing with company A, issued invoices to company A, but company A said, “not our problem mate”.
Company B then blamed our client for its incompetence, would not pay the invoices, but offered to pay half.
Under the undisclosed principal doctrine, company B having not been disclosed to my client, my client is entitled to sue both.
However, the law is an ass, and he cannot get judgment against both, and instead must elect whether to get judgment against company A or company B.
Anyway, we are about sue both and settle with one or both at mediation.
For assistance with disputes, including those with messy agency issues, see Michael Paterson & Associates.