Swipe left and right.
1. Agency by Agreement.
2. Agency by Apparent or Ostensible Authority.
3. Agency by the Operation of The Law.
4. Agency by Ratification.
1. Gives agent actual authority.
In the case of Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd, Lord Denning said:
…actual authority may be express or implied. It is express when it is given by express words, such as when a board of directors pass a resolution which authorises two of their number to sign cheques . It is implied when it is inferred from the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case , such as when the board of directors appoint one of their number to be managing director. They thereby impliedly authorise him to do all such things as fall within the usual scope of that office. Actual authority, express or implied, is binding as between the company and the agent, and also as between the company and others, whether they are within the company or outside it.
1. Incidental Authority. see the case of Agbemashior and Others v State Insurance Corporation and Others, where the agent could employ a lawyer to hep him recover claims.
In section 2.03 of the Restatement (3rd) of Agency, it is provided that “apparent authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal’s legal relations with third partieswhen a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestations
1. It must be impossible for the agent to communicate with the principal: in the case ofSpringer v Great Western Railway Company
a , the defendant was contracted to carry tomatoes from Channels Island to Weymouth by ship and from there to London by train. When the ship arrived in Weymouth, and due to a strike action by the defendant’s workers, there was a two-day delay in Weymouth causing some tomatoes to start to go bad, the defendant, without communicating to the plaintiff, decided to sell those tomatoes they believed could go bad beyond saleable condition. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for damages when they discovered this, and the court held that the defendant’s failure to communicate with the plaintiff about their actions when they could have done so, makes them liable. No agency for necessity thus existed due to the possibility of communication and the failure of the defendant to communicate.