Hicks v Walker, Reynolds, Frank Reynolds Limited and Purchase
Queen's Bench Division 16 May 1984 (Times Law Report 28.5.84)

Walker, a motor trader, who had been refused a consumer credit licence, sub-let part of his premises to Frank Reynolds Limited, which Company held a valid licence. Walker employed Mr. Purchase, who was also an employee of Frank Reynolds Limited. The arrangement was that if a customer paid cash for a car, Walker (or in his absence, Mr Purchase) carried out the transaction. If credit was required, either Walker or Mr Purchase informed the customer that finance could be arranged. Mr Purchase then told Frank Reynolds Limited about the customer's needs, and Frank Reynolds Limited contacted a finance company. The car was sold by Walker to Frank Reynolds Limited, to allow the latter to give good title.

The finance companies thought they were dealing exclusively with Frank Reynolds Limited. Customers thought that they were dealing with Walker, or Mr Purchase on his behalf.

It was held that there was a clear inference that, when Mr Purchase informed Frank Reynolds Limited of the need for credit, he was acting as an agent of Walker, and was effecting an introduction of credit-brokerage business to another credit-broker.