Apparent/ostensible authority

Hi Lyn

For our purposes I believe that it’s safe to say there is no difference.

Certainly the two expressions are always talked of as a couple

Here’s the “Legal Dictionary” definition of ostensible authority:

“ostensible authority authority that appears from the circumstances to exist whatever the reality may be. The manager of a shop has ostensible authority in relation to many transactions, regardless of what authority the owner may actually have given him”

And here’s the “Legal Dictionary” definition of apparent authority:

“apparent authority the situation where, objectively looked at, it seems that an agent does have the authority of his principal. Where an agent has apparent authority to enter into a transaction, the fact that he lacks real authority will not necessarily render the transaction void; the appearance of authority will operate to create an ESTOPPEL or bar preventing the principal from denying the existence of such authority”

Does that make it any clearer for you?

I’ll be honest with you …. it doesn’t make it any clearer for me

But don’t worry about it – it probably isn’t any clearer for the examiner 🙂

Implied authority is where a person, with the full knowledge and tacit agreement of the principal, is allowed to act and continue to act as though they are an agent …. even though no express agreement has ever been in place between them

Implied authority is the expression given where we have an agent / principal situation but there is no express agreement

You’re welcome