問題：
讀者「呀古」問：「呀度｣駕車於無名路與「呀韓｣駕駛的車輛相撞，結果兩車俱有損毀。「呀度｣與「呀韓｣均認為對方疏忽，但又不肯定自己全無責任，於是口頭協議互不追究。三個月後，「呀度｣的車主「呀古｣入稟法庭向「呀韓｣追討自車之維修費損失，「呀韓｣辯稱意外當天已與「呀度｣口頭協議互不追究，現在竟然來向他追討，是違反協議，故拒絕申索人「呀古｣之申索。但「呀古｣回應稱當天與「呀韓｣協議互不追究的是「呀度｣，自己從來沒有與「呀韓｣達成任何協議，故申索有理。

究竟「呀古｣說的這番話能否令法庭接納他向「呀韓｣提出的申索呢？

答案：
若只就上述例子的資料分析，筆者只能說 : 「不知道！看情況而定｣。大家可參考英國的高等法院在 Barnard v. Sully (1931) 47 TLR 557 一案：

「No doubt, sometimes motors-cars were being driven by persons who were not the owner. As illustrations of that there were the numerous prosecutions for joy riding, and there were also the cases where chauffeurs drove their employers’ motors-cars for their own private folly. But, apart from authority, the more usual fact was that a motor-car was driven by the owner or the servant or agent of the owner, and therefore the fact of ownership was some evidence fit to go to the jury that at the material time the motor-car was being driven by the owner of it or by his servant or agent. But it was evidence which was liable to be rebutted by proof of the actual facts. 」

在Harry Rambarran v. Gurrucharran [1970] 1 WLR 556一案中亦指出：

「Where no more is known of the facts, therefore, than that at the time of an accident the car was owned but not driven by A it can be said that A's ownership affords some evidence that it was being driven by his servant or agent. But when the facts bearing on the question of service or agency are known, or sufficiently known, then clearly the problem must be decided on the totality of the evidence. 」

上述兩個案例所述說的法律原則大意為：當意外發生時，若肇事車輛並非由車主駕駛，則可假定該車輛在意外時為車主之僱員或代理人所駕駛此表面証據成立，除非另有証據。

此外，再參看Bowstead & Reynolds on Agency, 第17版 （2001年）, 第83(2)條目：

「A person who, in dealing with an agent, reasonably believes that the agent is the principal in the transaction is discharged from liability by payment to or settlement with the agent in any manner which would have operated as a discharge if the agent had been the principal … provided that he had not at the time when the payment to or settlement took place … received notice that the agent was not in fact the principal.」

上文之法律原則大意為：當某人與一名代理人交易時，若他並不知道該名代理人並非主事人，而合理地相信該代理人就是主事人，則在他履行了與代理人的協議，而該協議也足夠解除代理人作為主事者的責任後，某人在此宗交易的責任即告解除。

所以，根據上述條文，「呀韓｣雖然只與「呀度｣而非「呀古｣於意外當天達成和解，但「呀韓｣於意外發生時是「呀古｣的僱員或其代理人的表面證據是成立的，而「呀韓｣並不知道「呀度｣並非車主，而合理地相信「呀度｣就是車主，故「呀韓｣與「呀度｣之和解協議仍屬有效，法庭不會接納「呀古｣向「呀韓｣提出的申索。

但有一點需要補充，上述之「呀度｣為「呀古｣之僱員或代理人之說法乃根據表面証據而成立，若「呀古｣於庭上交待其實「呀度｣與他的關係並非「僱主與僱員｣或「代理人｣，並能附上足夠証據，那麼，「呀韓｣與「呀度｣之和解協議就只是他們兩人的事，法庭仍會接納「呀古｣向「呀韓｣提出的申索。

所以，與司機簽了「和解協議｣也不一定代表對方（車主）無權追討，故此，一遇上交通意外，還是立即向專業人仕請教，方為上策！

〈本文並非法律意見。如有疑問，請諮詢閣下的律師或專業人仕。為方便讀者理解，案例內容有所簡略及修訂。〉