Hey okay so I have an assignment literally due in a few hours.

Agency law. I have included, the assignment question below, but basically:

• Trevor is the principal
• Silvia is the agent
• Arthur is the 3rd party

Trevor appointed Silvia, and the day of appointing her he sent a letter to Arthur informing him and confirming the authority Silvia has to buy and sell on his behalf. Trevor also express instruction to Silvia not to deal with Malevich due to the risk of forgery.

Silvia, then purporting to act on behalf of Trevor, contracts with Arthur to buy from him a genuine Malevich painting, for $60,000. However, she then secretly sells the painting, without informing Trevor and keeps the money for herself, resigning and moving country.

Arthur sends a reminder to Trevor for his $60,000 bill. However, after Trevor discovers what Silvia has done he refuses to make a payment claiming that Silvia was not authorised to buy any paintings by Malevich.

Basically I have to I have to advice Arthur on whether he has any legal grounds to claim the $60,000 from Trevor. And it needs to be written in an IRAC format which stands for:

1. What is the issue?
2. What is the relevant law?
3. How would the relevant law be applied?
4. Conclusion.

Assignment question: 

Trevor is an art dealer based in Melbourne who has been buying and selling art from different collectors in Australia. Arthur is an art collector based in Perth who regularly sells paintings to Trevor. As part of their business arrangement Trevor and Arthur apply a buy now pay later service whereby Trevor makes payment for purchased paintings after two months. On 1 November, Trevor appoints Silvia as his agent in Perth and that same day, he sends a letter to Arthur confirming Silvia's appointment and her authority to buy and sell pictures on his behalf. In fact, Silvia is under an express instruction not to deal with any pictures alleged to have been painted by Malevich, because of the risk of forgery. On 10 December, Silvia, purporting to act on behalf of Trevor, contracts with Arthur to buy from him 'Black Square', a genuine Malevich painting, for $60,000 - utilising the buy not pay later service. Silvia then secretly sells the painting, without informing Trevor and keeps the money for herself. Silvia later resigns as Trevor's agent and moves to New Zealand without informing Trevor about the purchase. On 12 February, Arthur sends a reminder to Trevor about his $60,000 bill for the painting. Trevor soon discovers what Silvia has done but has refused to make the payment claiming that Silvia was not

authorised to buy any paintings by Malevich.

I have to restrict my analysis to legal principles and cases covered in Agency Law only (& not to discuss the sub-topic of 'Duties of an agent' which is covered in our teacher Sample IRAC answer).So I am just a little confused to what I should talk about. Would love some pointers. Thanks :)