In giving judgment Cotton, l.J., said; "The case of

Walter v. James (1871), L, R. G Ex. 124, was relied on by the

appellant ; but in that case there was an agreement between

the assumed agent of the defendant and the plaintiff, to

cancel what had been done before any ratification by the

defendant ; in the present case there was no agreement made

between Scratchley and the defendant that what had been

done by Scratchley should be considered as null and void."

In re Tiedemann tfr Ledermann Freres (1899), 2 q. B.

QQ ; here the Court adopted and followed the principle laid

down in the above case.

In re Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines, Ex, parte

Badman (1890), 45 Ch. D. 16. C. A.; here Bowen, L.J,

said ; " Now I agree that, as this is an act done professedly

on behalf of the company by persons who had not in fact

authority to act as agents of the company, it does require

ratification by the company to make the act a good one

and to make it binding ; and I also think that a ratification

by the company must occur within a reasonable time."

(J) The principal must ratify an unauthorized agent's

act in its entirety, or not at all ; for he may not adopt

the part that is advantageous to him, without also perform-

Ing the part that is disadvantageous, but must take the

burdens and liabilities as well as the benefits — vide Bristow

V. WJiitmore (1861), 9 h. L. 391, & 8 Jur. N.S. 291.

(g) Where an unauthorized agent's act is not a contract,

the principal cannot subsequently ratify that act, when

It is such that, if it had been an authorized act, it would

either have imposed upon a third party a duty towards

the principal (for non-performance of which a liability to

damages would arise), or would have divested a right or

estate already vested in a third party.

Doe d. Fisher v. Cuthel (1804), 5 East. 491 ; here a

notice to quit was given to a tenant by two out of three

c

18 The law of agency.

joint- tenants. The notice purported to be given in the

name of all the three tenants, but was as a matter of fact

given without the authority of the third ; and the Court

held that a subsequent ratification by the third joint-

tenant did not make the notice valid, as the tenant was

entitled to such a notice as he could act upon with cer-

tainty at the time it was given.

Doe d. Mann v. Walters (1830), 10 B. & C. 626; here

It was held that where a notice to quit was given to

a tenant by the landlord's agent, the agent must have

authority to give it at the time when it began to operate,

and that a subsequent recognition and ratification of the

authority would not make the notice good.

Jones v. Phipps (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 567; here it was

held that a notice to quit must be such as the tenant may

safely act upon — that is, one which is in fact, and which

the tenant has reason to believe to be, binding on the

landlord.

Coles V. Bell (1808), 1 Camp. 478 n. ; in this case, which

was an action for non-payment of goods, the demand for

payment had been made by the clerk of the plaintiff's

solicitor, who apparently had not been authorized by the

plaintiff" to make such demand : the Court held that

the demand was insufficient, as it ought to have been

made by some one authorized to give the defendant a

discharge.

Different Methods of Ratification. — Eatification may take

place, expressly, by word of mouth, by mere writing, by

writing under seal ; or may be implied by conduct. But if

the act of the professed agent was done under seal, then

the ratification, in order to be binding, must also be

under seal.

With regard to ratification implied by conduct — vide

Prince v. Clark (182:5), 1 B. & C. 186; here it was held

that where the relation of principal and agent exists

between the parties, the unauthorized act of the agent

FORMATION OF AGENCY. 19

will be presumed to be ratified by mere acquiescence, unless

the principal gives notice of repudiation of such act within

a reasonable time after he is aware of it.