cation of the general principle as to ratification. The appeal therefore fails on all points. LOPES, L. J. An important point is raised with regard to the withdrawal of the offer before ratification in this case. If there had been no withdrawal of the offer this case would have been simple. The ratification by the plaintiffs would have related back to the time of the acceptance of the defendant's offer by Scratchley, and the plaintiffs would have adopted a contract made on their behalf. It is said that there was no contract which could be ratified, because Scratchley at the time he accepted the defendant's offer had no authority to act for the plaintiffs. Directly Scratchley on behalf and in the name of the plaintiffs accepted the defendant's offer, I think there was a contract made by Scratchley assuming to act for the plaintiffs, subject to proof by the plaintiffs that Scratchley had that authority. The plaintiff's subsequently did adopt the contract, and thereby recognized the authority of their agent Scratchley. Directly they did so the doctrine of ratification applied and gave the same effect to the contract made by Scratchley as it would have had if Scratchley had been clothed with a precedent authority to make it. If Scratchley had acted under a precedent authority the withdrawal of the offer by the defendant would have been inoperative, and it is equally inoperative where the plaintiffs have ratified and adopted the contract of the agent. To hold otherwise would be to deprive the doctrine of ratification of its retrospective effect. To use the words of Baron Martin in Brook v. Hook, L. R. 6 Ex. 96, the ratification would not be dragged back as it were, and made equipollent to a prior command." " I have nothing to add with regard to the other points raised. I agree with what has been said on those points. The appeal must be dismissed.1 1 See In re Portuguese Consolidated Copper Mines, 45 Ch. D. 16 (C. A. 1890), where, in the Chancery Division, NORTH, J., commenting on the principal case, said: "It comes to this, that if an offer to purchase is made to a person who professes to be the agent for a principal, but who has no authority to accept it, the person making the offer will be in a worse position as regards withdrawing it than if it had been made to the principal; and the acceptance of the unauthorized agent in the meantime will bind the purchaser to his principal, but will not in any way bind the principal to the purchaser. . . . That case governs the present; and all that I can say is that I am glad to have such an authority to guide me; for I am afraid I should have gone wrong if I had not had the assistance of that decision." And in the same case in the Court of Appeal, LINDLEY, L. J., said: “Then it is said that the fact that the contract was made by persons without authority makes it void. . . . That was the very point urged in Bolton Partners v. Lambert; but the court repudiated it, and said: 'No, it is voidable at the option of the principal; he can avoid it if he likes; he can elect to stand upon it if he likes.'" ... There are comments on the principal case in 5 Law Q. Rev. 440; Fry on Specific Performance (3d ed.), 711-713; 9 Harv. Law Rev. 60.- Ed. INDEX. Appointment of agent, 42-78. in general, 42-51. Blackstone's Commentaries, quoted, 93–95. Brokers, powers of, 268, 272-281. rights and liabilities of, as to third parties CIPAL. COKE on Littleton, quoted, 3, 987, n. delegation of employment to, 929-931, Compulsory servant, 129-133, 808-810. how distinguished from servants, 152- Contracts of agent, principal's responsibility unauthorized, of agent, agent's responsi authorized, of agent, agent's responsibil- See MARRIED WOMEN. DEATH as terminating agency, 957-962. agent's responsibility to third person for agent's authority to make, 928-952. Digest quoted, 986, n. Diligence. See OBEDIENCE. to execute instrument within Statute of Disobedience of servant, master's responsi Frauds, 52-58. to execute a specialty, 58-78. See DELEGATION, RATIFICATION. Arrest, responsibility for causing, 243–248. Auctioneer, 11-15, 535-540, 550-554, 561-564, BANKS as collecting agents, 936-939, 942-946. Bills and notes. See NEGOTIABLE INSTRU MENTS. bility for, in tort, 139-144, 234-237. Doctor and Student, quoted, 80-81. EMERGENCY, agent's powers in, 301-303, Employers' Liability Acts, 880, n. FACTORS' liabilities. See UNDISCLOSED powers, 253, 282-283, 627-628. statutes as to, 253, n., 355-357 NEGOTIABLE paper, agent's power to deal parties to, 601-626, 643-645, 647, n., 666, n. Nuisance, criminal, 432-435. OBEDIENCE, diligence, and skill, agent's duty Over-issues of certificates, 387-411, 425-428, PARTNER'S authority to execute specialties, Perkins' Profitable Book, quoted, 2, 18, n. TION. Principal, who can be, 15-38. See INSANITY; INFANCY; COVerture. Sce TORTS; CONTRACTS; MISREPRE See COMPENSATION; INDEMNITY; EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY ACTS. See OBEDIENCE; LOYALTY. Procuration, form and effect of signature by, QUASI-contractual liability of agent to third Qui facit per alium facit per se, 1–2. RATIFICATION, early authorities as to, 986- requisites and results of, 291-301, 989- intervention of rights preventing, 1034- Reimbursement, agent's right to, 741-773. Repairs. See FELLOW-SERVANTS; APPLI- Revocation. See TERMINATION. SEALED instruments. See SPECIALTIES. Set-off and similar defences, in cases of un- Sext, quoted. 1, n., 833, n., 987, n. Specialties, appointment to execute, 58-78. See UNDISCLOSED PRINCIPAL. form of signature to an instrument within, Statute of Limitations, 37-39. principal's responsibility for. See DEL Undisclosed Principal. — continued. liabilities of, 331-334, 636-657, 692–723. VICE-PRINCIPAL, 824-881. Volenti non fit injuria, 831-833, 836-841, 868- Volunteer, principal's responsibility for acts principal's responsibility to, 813-818. WAR, 962-967. Warranty, authority to give, 316-322, 328- implied, of authority, 504-509, 514-525. Writings, parties to, 548–626, 629-630. See SPECIALTIES; NEGOTIABLE PAPER; |