Agency

Hmmm! Q1 is tricky! Estoppel, I can agree with. The principal is estopped from denying the authority of the 'agent' because the principal has allowed the 'agent' to represent herself as the agent of the principal in prior situations. But implied agreement? Personally I believe that I would have selected 'ratification' as my second choice from the four options but, even so, I'm not 100% :-( 'Implied agreement' suggests activity on the part of the 'agent' without the formality of creating an 'express agreement' Nevertheless, it seems that the agent has acted and the principal is now being held to account for the agent's actions. Ratification? The agent has acted, beyond the bounds of any express or implied agreement and now the principal is facing the situation of an agent having clearly acted beyond their powers. Do we say to the other party 'Yes, OK, we'll accept the contract that the agent has entered into apparently on our behalf'. But, you see, that has, by definition, involved some action by the agent. Oh dear! Ratification or implied agreement? They both have involved the actions of the agent. I'm going to opt for 'ratification'. Sorry! Q2 This really comes down to 'What could the other party have known?' In the three options a, b and d the third party couldn't have known that the 'agent' was an agent. The principle (not principal!) is that the third party could not have known of any agency situation until the contract is defaulted and then the principal is available to be sued. We're now into the doctrine of the undisclosed principal. But, for option c, the agent DOES say that she is an agent and therefore the other party is given notice that there is a principal who can be looked to for any default on the contract. It's yet another awkward situation! Sorry :-(

It's no inconvenience! I'm happy to have the opportunity to help!