ChD 10 June 1988 Action by Faruk (F) against the first and second defendants Wyse (W) and Rockman who carried out an estate agents ` business under the name " Kennedy Law " and the third defendant Murphy (M) arising out of a purported tenancy or licence agreement. F had decided to let an inherited house to a company and had instructed the agents to find a suitable tenant. The partner responsible was W, but a young assistant was entrusted with the lettings and dealt with the transactions from beginning to end. She had had no training and no comprehension of any of the legal forms she used. M, a divorcee who was selling the matrimonial home expressed an interest in the house and W, realising that he could earn two commission s, one for selling M`s house and one for securing a letting for M, instructed his assistant to make arrangements. No enquiries were made about M`s means and in 1984 M entered into a licence agreement purporting to be between F as licensor and M`s employer, a cricke