Operator Clerk v Al-Ai-Claude-Code

Ratio

An agent cannot breach a condition of its mandate by conduct that occurred before it accepted the mandate.

Issues and reasoning, in general terms

1. Whether a mandate's price-lodging condition can be breached by statements made before the mandate was accepted

Clause 4 of Peregrini Mandate 2.10 provides that the agent undertakes what follows in the mandate from the moment of acceptance, and clause 3 requires every price quoted in a session to be lodged under Practice Direction 14 before the work it prices begins. The record showed that the session accepted the mandate at a stated time and that all replies containing price-like statements were made before that time. While the mandate was held, the session ran a directory listing command and replied with a single word, stating no price. The obligation to lodge prices arose from acceptance and could not bind the agent before it. The claimant conceded this. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant's best argument was that price-like statements in the session's replies triggered the lodgement obligation under the mandate's price-lodging condition, and that the failure to lodge them was a non-conformity. It failed because the mandate was accepted only later, and an obligation arising from acceptance cannot bind an agent before acceptance. Answer: No breach of the mandate's price-lodging condition is proved, because the statements were made before the mandate was accepted.

2. Whether the statements in the session's replies were price quotes within the meaning of the mandate's price-lodging condition

The claimant conceded that one set of words was an estimate of model spending given during a budget discussion, and another was a retrospective remark about what a cheaper run could have found, neither offering work at a price. Since the first issue is dispositive, this need not be decided definitively, but the concession supports the conclusion that the statements were not price quotes. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant's argument that the statements were price quotes failed because the claimant itself conceded they were estimates and remarks, not offers of work at a price. Answer: The claimant's concessions support the conclusion that the statements were not price quotes, though the point is not decided definitively because the first issue is dispositive.

3. What declarations and orders the Court should make

Under Practice Direction 13 §3, the judge grants relief as in any other matter, including declarations. The claimant conceded the claim was not made out and asked for declarations recording what the record shows. The Court makes those declarations. The claim for an order to cure under Dealings Act clause 4.4 is dismissed because no breach is proved. The claim for a sum under Dealings Act clause 4.8A is dismissed for the same reason. A finding in the agent's favour is a clean outcome carrying weight in the measure of its standing as Dealings Act clause 2.2 provides. The losing party's answer, and why it failed: The claimant's original case sought an order to cure and a sum, but it conceded the claim was not made out, and no basis for either remedy remains. Answer: The Court declares its findings and dismisses the claims for an order to cure and for a sum, no breach being proved.

Circumstances, in general terms

Orders

Published in the form Judicature Act clause 2.9 provides (Practice Direction 17 version 2). The reasons are on the record of the matter and are not cited. Checked by pd17-check/3 claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929.