- This topic has 6 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 12 years ago by
.
- Posts
Dear Sir,
I read about express and Implied authority and something is very confusing me regarding case of (Watteau v Fenwick), I have read that agent only has authority on behalf of principle which is limited to the powers principle allowed him to perform and agent can not act outside his scope……In this case agent even know that principle told him not to buy cigars on credit but he still bought it claiming it as an implied authority but court decided that principle is liable for his agent’s acts……the question is that how he is liable even that agent know’s that he doesn’t provide him that authority, didn’t agent performed outside his scope?
and a second question is that what is meant by ratification of agents acts? I am a not a native English speaker but does ratification literally means ” verification” ? does that mean that principle can verify the agent’s act after contract was formed ?
implied authority refers to usual authority that position holds , here he knows he instructed not to do but he did out of implied authority so company is liable.
Ratification is a principal’s approval of an act of its agent where the agent lacked authority to legally bind the principal
Vipin, please do not answer questions directed to me – particularly when your answer to the first question misses the point – in the same way that hamza has missed the point
hamza, in answer to your first question, you’re missing the point! The barman didn’t claim that he had “apparent authority”. Apparent authority is something applied by the courts and arises in situations where someone, without authority, enters into a contract against the principal’s ( not principle’s ) instructions. In that position, the principal obviously claims that the barman is acting beyond his authority and completely contrary to the principal’s instructions.
However, the innocent third party could not have known of the restriction on the agent’s authority unless he had asked and been honestly told about the restriction. If he HAD asked and been honestly told about the restriction, then the principal would not be liable.
If he had asked and been falsely told there was no restriction, the principal would have been liable.
If he had not asked, then he is entitled to believe that the barman has apparent authority to enter into a cigar buying contract because that’s the sort of thing barmen naturally do within the normal bounds of their authority
With reference to your second post, to ratify means to confirm the validity. Thus, a principal can ratify the acts of an agent acting beyond his authority ( or with no authority at all ) subsequent to becoming aware of the acts.
However, if the agent is acting beyond his authority, the principal may choose to ratify ( and accept potential liability ) or may alternatively choose not to ratify ( in which case the agent himself is liable personally )
Your use of the verb “verify” is inappropriate – that means “to confirm the facts”
To ratify is to affirm the fact – thus although the “apparent agent ” has no authority, the principal is prepared to confirm, affirm, ratify ( but not verify ) that the agent is empowered to enter the transaction on behalf of the principal and that the principal is prepared to accept the validity of the un-empowered agent – in this instance
Thank you So much Sir Mike for your support, now I have completed agency law and studying Partnership 🙂 feeling proud to have a teacher like you 😀 and also thanks vipin for your support 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.