agency law

Interesting quote … where’s it from?

I can understand “agency is formed without the principal’s consent” but I’m struggling with your quote

Maybe it’s referring to an agency agreement without any formal arrangements as in the case of an agency created out of necessity

Do you think that could be the case?

It’s still a strange question and the word “consent” makes it confusing

Clearly agency by express agreement requires the agent to expressly agree

Agency by implied agreement again suggests that the agent knows that the relationship is one of agent / principal and has placed himself into the position where outsiders would view him as an agent. Does that mean that he consents?

Agency by estoppel is where the principal is estoppel from denying that the person is an agent because he has been allowed in the last to act like an agent. But does that mean that the agent “consents”?

And by ratification? This is where the “agent” enters into a contract for the benefit is the principal but does so beyong the agent’s authority. The principal comes along later and says “You shouldn’t have done that but, this time, I’m going to accept that you are an agent and I’m going to ratify your unauthorized actions”

Now, other than “by express agreement” which of those other three are situations where the agent hasn’t given consent?

What a dreadful question!

Sorry that I can’t help further!

OK?