Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/395

 —

—

.

Part VI. members

is

— Delegation.

examined in a leading case

of the authority in a

mode

(p).

This

prescribed, and there

173 is is

^•

only an exercise no delegation of

Position of

Sub^ent.

the duty.

Part VII. Sect.

—

Ratification.

In General.

1.

377. Under certain conditions a contract or other act which at the time it was entered into or done by an agent lacked the authority, express or implied, of a principal, may by his subsequent conduct become ratified by him and made as effectively his own as if he had previously authorised it. Where the act has been done by a person not assuming to act on his own behalf, but for another, though without his precedent authority {q) or knowledge (?•), and is subsequently ratified by that other person, the relation of principal and agent is constituted In such a case the principal is bound by the act retrospectively. whether it be to his advantage or detriment, whether it be founded in contract or in tort, to the same extent and with all the same consequences as if the same act had been done by his previous authority

(s)

Sect.

378.

Effect of ratification,

A

2.

ratification

Acts capahle of Ratification.

may

be

of

one act or a series

of acts



and as

General

rule,

a general rule every act may be ratified, whether legal or illegal, if it be not void in its inception, provided that it was capable of being done by the principal himself {t). Where the validity of an act depends on the confirmation of one or more persons, it is voidable

only and not void, and is therefore capable of ratification (a). The act of a public officer, such as a sheriff's officer, performed Act of public o®^^^'in his public capacity, is not capable of ratification by a private person (h), but where a sheriff professes and intends to act on behalf of a private individual, or a corporation, the private individual or corporation can ratify his act (c). A contract may be ratified even though the circumstances have Contract, altered, as by a loss occurring under an unauthorised insurance policy id), or even w^hen the third party has given notice of Osgood V. Nelsoii (1872), L. E. 5 H. L. 636. Simpson v. Egghigton (1855), 10 Exch. 845. (r) Ancona v. Marks (1862), 7 H. & N. 686. (s) Wilson V. Tumman (1848), 6 Man. & G. 236 {per Tindal, C.J., at p. 242) Maclean v. Dunn (1828), 1 Moo. & P. 761 Foster v. Bates (1843), 12 M. & W. (

p)

Iq)





226. {t)

(a)

Mason v. Clifton (1863), 3 F. & P. 899. Spachnan v. Evans (1868), L. E. 3 H. L.

171, at p. 244.

Wilson V. Tumman, supra; Woollen v. Wright (1862), 1 H. & 0. 554. (c) Walker v. Hunter (1845), 2 C. B. 324; Carter y. Vestrij of St. Mary Ahhofs, Kensington (1900), 64 J. P. 548. {d) Hagedorn v. Oliverson (1814), 2 M. & S. 485; Williams v. North China Insurance Go. (1876), 1 C. P. D. 757. [h)