Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/400

 —

,

178

Agency.

Sect.

3,

Conditions of Ratification. Eatification

must not be partial.

them

as to render

after notice of loss

Contract in writing.

Essentials of ratification.

made by

of insurance

may be ratified by the principal

(e).

A

contract cannot be ratified in part and repudiated in part. If ratified, the whole contract must be ratified, and the agency accepted aim onere (/). Eatification of one of a series of acts constituting one transaction operates as a ratification of the entire transaction (g).

Sect. Deed.

But a contract

liable (d).

an agent on the principal's property

4.

Manner

of Batification

385. The execution of a deed can only be ratified by deed or by matter of record {h). Subject to this, a ratification may be by parol, or be implied from conduct (^) Even in the case of a written contract which is unenforceable unless evidenced by a note or memorandum in writing, it is not necessary that the ratification should be in writing (i). An action on a voidable contract (k) or a pleading relying on an unauthorised act (I) is an adoption of the agency. Ratification must be evidenced either by clear adoptive acts (m), or by acquiescence equivalent thereto. The act or acts of adoption or acquiescence must be accompanied by full knowledge of all the.

and must relate to a transaction to which effect unless the principal shows an intention to take all risks (^). But it is not necessary that he should know the legal A mere act of repudiation by the effect of the act ratified (g). principal does not in itself, and apart from any conduct which it may have induced in any third person, estop the principal from subsequently adopting or ratifying the agent's act (?)• essential facts (n),

can be given

(c^)

(e)

(o),

Jardine v. Zea^A/e?/ (1863), 3 B. & S. 700, per Crompton, J., at p. 708. Cory v. Patton (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B. 577 Williams v. North China Insur;

ance Co. (1876), 1 0. P. D. 757.

(/) Hovil

Y.

Pack

Lord Ellenbokotjgh

(1806), 7 East, 166, per



Wilson

y.

Poulter (1730), 2 Str. 859. ((/)

Rodwell

V.

Eden

(1859), 1 F.

&

F. 542.

Hunter v. Parker (1840), 7 M. & W. 322 Twpper v. Foulkes (1861), 9 C. B. Mayor, Aldermen and Citizens of Oxford v. Croiu, [1893] 3 Ch. 535. (n. s.) 797 (i) Maclean v. I^u7in (1828), 1 M. & P. 761 Fitzmaurice v. Bay ley (1856), 6 E. & B. 868 Soames v. Spencer (1822), 1 D. & E. 32. (k) Lucy V. Walrond (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 848, per Coltman", J. (/i)









(l) Belshatu v. Bush (1851), 11 C. B. 191. (m) Lythgoe v. Verno7i (1860), 29 L. J. (ex.) 164; Smithy. Baker (1873), L. E. 8 C. P. 350; Brewer v. Sparrow (1827), 7 B. & C. 310; Valpy v. Sanders (1848), Moon v. Towers (I860), 5 C. B. 886 (what constitutes such a clear adoptive act) 8 0. B. (n. s.) 611. Haselery. Lemoyne {l8o8), 5 C. B. {n) Savery v. King (1856), 5 H. L. Cas. 627 Gunn v. Roherts (1874), L. E. 9 C. P., per Brett, J., at p. 335 ; and (n. s.) 530 see Marsh v. Joseph, [1897] 1 Ch. 213. (o) La Banque Jacques- Cartier v. La Banque d^ Epargne de la Cite et du District Foligno v. Martin (1852), 22 L. J. (CH.) 502 de Montreal (1887), 13 App. Cas. Ill Jackson v. Jacob (1837), 3 Bing. (n. c.) 869 Munnings v. Bury (1829), 1 Tarn. 147. {p) Breiuer v. Sparrow, supra (where the assignees of a bankrupt affirmed the acts of a person wrongfully selling property, they could not afterwards treat him Haseler v. Lemoyne, supra. But see Valpy v. Sanders, supra. as a wrong^doer) Lewis y. Bead (1845), 13 M. & W. iq) Powell V. Smith (1872), L. E. 14 Eq. 85 834; Fitzmaurice y. Bayley (1856), 6 E. & B. 868; Hilhery v. Hatton (1864), 2 H. & C. 822. (r) Simpson y. Eggington (1855), 10 Exch. 845; Soames y. Spencer (1822), 1 D. & E. 32).