Carrier v. McLlarky
693 A.2d 76, 1997 N.H. LEXIS 35, 141 N.H. 738 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agent's promise to act on behalf of a principal is generally interpreted as a promise to make reasonable efforts to accomplish the directed result, not a guarantee of success. An agent is not liable for failing to obtain a result if they exercised reasonable diligence and the principal was not entitled to the result in the first place.
Facts:
- Janet Carrier's hot water heater, which had been installed by a different plumber four years prior, failed.
- Carrier hired Bruce M. McLlarky to install a new hot water heater.
- McLlarky told Carrier that he believed the old unit was still under warranty.
- McLlarky agreed to return the old, defective unit to a supplier on Carrier's behalf in an attempt to obtain a warranty credit against the cost of the new heater.
- McLlarky took the old unit for this purpose but did not ultimately provide Carrier with a credit.
- McLlarky stated he never received a credit from the manufacturer to pass on to Carrier.
- Carrier was unable to produce a warranty document proving her specific failed unit was covered.
Procedural Posture:
- Janet Carrier sued Bruce M. McLlarky in the Derry District Court, a small claims court of first instance.
- The district court rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, Carrier.
- The defendant, McLlarky, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an agent breach their duty of diligence to a principal by failing to secure a warranty credit, when the agent only promised to make a reasonable effort and there is no evidence the principal was entitled to the credit?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
No. An agent does not breach their duty of diligence by failing to secure a specific outcome when they only agreed to make a reasonable effort to achieve it. The court found that while an agency relationship was created, McLlarky's duty was only to make a reasonable effort to get the credit, not to guarantee it. The evidence showed he fulfilled this duty by returning the unit to his supplier. An agent's duty of skill is limited to the competence common in their profession, and a supplier's letter confirmed McLlarky acted in a 'normal manner.' Furthermore, an agent cannot be held liable for failing to procure something to which the principal is not entitled. Carrier failed to produce any evidence that her specific heater was actually covered by a valid warranty. Finally, there was no evidence that McLlarky ever received a credit and failed to remit it. Therefore, the trial court's finding of a breach was unsupported by the evidence.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of an agent's duty of care, particularly in informal or gratuitous agency relationships. The decision establishes that an agent's duty is measured by the reasonableness of their efforts, not the success of the outcome, unless they have guaranteed a specific result. This protects agents from becoming insurers of their principal's objectives. The ruling also underscores the evidentiary burden on the principal to prove not only that the agent was negligent but also that the principal was actually entitled to the benefit the agent failed to obtain. This precedent is significant for service providers who may perform small, ancillary tasks for customers, defining their liability based on the limited scope of their promise.
Unlock the full brief for Carrier v. McLlarky