This brings the situation squarely within the example given by Denning, L.J., in Pearson v. Rose & Young, Ltd., supra, where he said at p. 1031: … if the true owner allows the agent to have the goods on hire or for repair, and the agent later on makes up his mind to steal them and does so, either by breaking bulk (common law), or by converting them to his own use (statute), the agent is guilty of larceny as a bailee, but the true owner undoubtedly consented to his having possession of them. and the later statement [p. 1032]: … the owner must consent to the agent having them for a purpose which is in some way or other connected with his business as a mercantile agent. It may not actually be for sale. It may be for display or to get offers, or merely to put the goods in his showroom, but there must be a consent to something of that kind before the owner can be deprived of his goods.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.