OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY

I'm looking at chapter 10 in a BPP study text, paragraph 3.4. This states that 'apparent or ostensible authority ….. occurs when a principal holds it out to be so to a third party' My copy of the study text is from 2017 so the reference may have changed by the time we get to 2019 … but it's unlikely to have changed by much! OK?

So Is C ostensible authority? What is implied authority then Please elaborate sir

Implied authority is authority that is not express Where I appoint an agent in writing, that will confer express authority. There's no question or doubt about that appointment But, equally, I can appoint an agent simply by oral appointment and that, too, is express However, that could be difficult to prove in a court of law! But there are situations where a person acts as agent on behalf of a principal and the authority of that person's actions may only be implied from the specific situation Where I own a restaurant and appoint an employee to be chef, is it not reasonable for the local fruit and vegetable wholesale market to believe that that person has the authority from me to buy fruit and vegetables for the restaurant I believe that that situation would be an example of ostensible / apparent authority Does that make it any better for you?

Thanks a ton sir for making the concept 100 times clearer to me... and your explanation definitely confirms the answer given behind the book (C) to be wrong.

You're welcome

In the above question, option c) seems to suggest implied authority because of the word implied and what is usual in the circumstances. I read that usual authority is another word for implied authority whereas for ostensible authority it is apparent authority. I think in order for option c) to be correct it should include what is beyond normal in the circumstances and not what is normal or usual in the circumstances. There does not seem to be any key word to not conclude that it is implied authority. What really is the key word that suggests that it is ostensible authority.

There isn't a magic word - sorry Check out the case Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties OK?

I still probably don't get it, option c) seems to be the definition of implied authority and not ostensible authority. It seems to be a definition question and the definition given in option c) seems to fit well with implied authority.There is not enough information in option c) to conclude that it is ostensible authority at all.

Of the 4 options given, which of the options a, b and d better fits the situation of ostensible authority? It seems to me that you are hooked on the use of the word 'impliedly' within the question

Not only curious about the word impliedly but also about the words : usual in the circumstances.

I refer you to the Watteau v Fenwick case!