In some cases, a person who claims to have acted as an agent will be found to have had no actual or apparent authority to represent their principal. In such cases, it follows that the principal will not be bound by the acts in question.
But what is the position if the principal decides that, although the 'agent' acted without authority, they want the benefit of the transaction entered into? Can the principal somehow give the agent authority retrospectively? If so, what limitations exist on this power?
The examples in this section explore a principal's right to approve (ratify) an act done by someone who was not authorised to represent them.
|