“The subject of agency takes anyone who is rash enough to venture into it over a huge range of areas of the law, and into a variety of commercial nomenclatures and practices that no one person could master.” This is a joint caveat by Mr. F. M. B. Reynolds, B.C.L., M.A., Barrister and Fellow of Worcester College, Oxford, and Mr. B. J. Davenport, M.A., Barrister, in the preface to the 14th edition of “Bowstead on Agency,” which was recently published by Sweet & Maxwell.

This new edition of Bowstead expands the coverage of Commonwealth decisions—an act which is only to be applauded (much of the jurisprudence on this subject has been developed in the Commonwealth). In the eight years since the 13th edition such cases as W. J. Alan & Co. Ltd. v. El Nasr Export and Import Co. [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 313; The Albazero [1975] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 295; Allan v. Leo Lines Ltd. [1957]

The House of Lords’ decision in Sorrell v. Finch [1975] 2 W.L.R.—which was published on May 28, 1976, and which rendered incorrect the statement in the work concerning an estate agent’s implied authority to accept a deposit—is incorporated in an addendum, (a procedure which other publishers of expensive legal textbooks—Bowstead itself is priced at £20—could well consider).

Bowstead takes 140 Articles in which the law is stated—each Article is followed by comment and illustrated by clear, concise summaries of decided cases. These “case note” illustrations are very important to a book such as this, they give vividity and life to a work and are of particular value to students. The practitioner need not shy away from Bowstead, it is well indexed and comprehensive and the researcher in depth will always be pointed in the right direction by the footnoted references.