Apparent authority

Last updated

In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and South Africa, apparent authority (also called "ostensible authority") relates to the doctrines of the law of agency. It is relevant particularly in corporate law and constitutional law. Apparent authority refers to a situation where a reasonable third party would understand that an agent had authority to act. This means a principal is bound by the agent's actions, even if the agent had no actual authority, whether express or implied. It raises an estoppel because the third party is given an assurance, which he relies on and would be inequitable for the principal to deny the authority given. Apparent authority can legally be found, even if actual authority has not been given. [1]

Contents

There must be some act or some knowing omission on the part of the principal—if the agent alone acts to give the third party this false impression, then the principal is not bound. [2] However, the principal will be bound if the agent so acts in the presence of the principal, and the principal stands silently and says nothing to dissuade the third party from believing that the agent has the authority to bind the principal. Apparent authority can also occur where a principal terminates the authority of an agent, but does not inform third parties of this termination. This is called lingering apparent authority. Business owners can avoid being liable by giving public notice of the termination of authority, and by contacting any individual third parties who would have had reason to know of such authority.

In relation to companies, [2] the apparent authority of directors, officers and agents of the company is normally referred to as "ostensible authority." Apparent authority issues also arise in the Fourth Amendment context, concerning who has authority to consent to a search. [3]

The doctrine of apparent authority is based on the concept of estoppel, thus, it prevents the principal from denying the existence of agency to a third party, provided that a representation, as to the agent's authority, has been made by him to the third party either through his words or by his actions.

In law, apparent authority refers to the authority of an agent as it appears to others, [4] and it can operate both to enlarge actual authority and to create authority where no actual authority exists. [5] The law relating to companies and to ostensible authority are in reality only a sub-set of the rules relating to apparent authority and the law of agency generally, but because of the prevalence of the issue in relation to corporate law (companies, being artificial persons, are only ever able to act at all through their human agents), it has developed its own specific body of case law. However, some jurisdictions use the terms interchangeably.

In Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 the director in question managed the company's property and acted on its behalf and in that role employed the plaintiff architects to draw up plans for the development of land held by the company. The development ultimately collapsed and the plaintiffs sued the company for their fees. The company denied that the director had any authority to employ the architects. The court found that, while he had never been appointed as managing director (and therefore had no actual authority, express or implied) his actions were within his ostensible authority and the board had been aware of his conduct and had acquiesced in it. Diplock LJ identified four factors which must be present before a company can be bound by the acts of an agent who has no authority to do so; it must be shown that:

  1. a representation that the agent had authority to enter on behalf of the company into a contract of the kind sought to be enforced was made to the contractor;
  2. such a representation was made by a person or persons who has 'actual' authority to manage the business of the company, either generally or in respect of those matters to which the contract relates;
  3. the contractor was induced by such representation to enter into the contract, i.e. that he in fact relied upon it; and
  4. under its memorandum or articles of association the company was not deprived of the capacity either to enter into a contract of the kind sought to be enforced or to delegate authority to enter into a contract of that kind to an agent.

The agent must have been held out by someone with actual authority to carry out the transaction and an agent cannot hold himself out as having authority for this purpose. [6] The acts of the company as principal must constitute a representation (express or by conduct) that the agent had a particular authority and must be reasonably understood so by the third party. In determining whether the principal had represented his agent as having such authority, the court has to consider the totality of the company's conduct. [7] The most common form of holding out is permitting the agent to act in the conduct of the company's business, and in many cases this is inferred simply from allowing the agent to use a particular title, such as 'finance director'.

The apparent authority must not be undermined by any limitations on the company's capacity or powers found in the memorandum or articles of association, although in many countries, the effect of this is reduced by company law reforms abolishing or restricting the application of the ultra vires doctrine to companies. [8] However, statutory reforms do not affect the general principle that a third party cannot rely upon ostensible authority where it is aware of some limitation which prevents the authority arising, or is put on enquiry as to the extent of an individual's authority. [9] In some circumstances, the very nature of a transaction would be held to put a person on enquiry. [10]

The rule in Turquand's case

The rule in Turquand's case does not enable a third party to hold the company to an unauthorized transaction per se . It allows a third party to assume that a transaction which is within the authority of the directors has been properly authorized, but it requires the third party to establish the fact of authority, actual or apparent, in the first place.

Ratification

It is open to the principal to ratify an unauthorised agreement entered into by an agent. Ratification is the explicit or implicit action of the principal in agreeing, after the unauthorised act, to the act of the agent. Ratification by the principal causes such act to become binding on the third party. Note that without ratification by the principal, the third party is not bound to the unauthorized agreement created by an agent with no apparent authority, until the principal ratifies it. Whereas in the situation of an act done by an agent with ostensible (or apparent) authority, the principal and the third party are bound from the moment the agreement is consummated by the agent and third party.

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Garner, Bryan A., ed. in chief (1990). Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Group. p.  128. ISBN   0-314-22864-0. ISBN   0-314-24130-2-deluxe
  2. 1 2 Lehman, Jeffrey; Phelps, Shirelle (2005). West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 1 (2 ed.). Detroit: Thomson/Gale. p. 168. ISBN   9780787663742.
  3. ↑ When is a Parent’s Authority Apparent? Reconsidering Third Party Consent Searches of an Adult Child’s Private Bedroom and Property, Criminal Justice, Vol. 24, pp. 34–37, Winter 2010.
  4. ↑ Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 at 583
  5. ↑ See First Energy (UK) Limited v Hungarian International Bank [1993] BCLC 1409
  6. ↑ Armagas Ltd v Mudogas SA [1986] AC 717
  7. ↑ Egyptian International Foreign Trade Co v Soplex Wholesale [1985] BCLC 404 at 411
  8. ↑ For example, in the United Kingdom, see section 35A of the Companies Act 1985; in Canada, see section 18 of the Canada Business Corporations Act
  9. ↑ A L Underwood v Bank of Liverpool [1924] 1 KB 775
  10. ↑ For example, where a director paid cheques drawn in favour of the company into his personal bank account (see A L Underwood v Bank of Liverpool)

Related Research Articles

Estoppel Preventive judicial device in common law

Estoppel is a judicial device in common law legal systems whereby a court may prevent or "estop" a person from making assertions or from going back on his or her word; the person being sanctioned is "estopped". Estoppel may prevent someone from bringing a particular claim. Legal doctrines of estoppel are based in both common law and equity. It is also a concept in international law.

The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual fiduciary relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another to create legal relations with a third party. Succinctly, it may be referred to as the equal relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or implicitly, authorizes the agent to work under their control and on their behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring them and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:

<i>Ultra vires</i> Legal concept meaning powers are exceeded

Ultra vires is a Latin phrase used in law to describe an act which requires legal authority but is done without it. Its opposite, an act done under proper authority, is intra vires. Acts that are intra vires may equivalently be termed "valid", and those that are ultra vires termed "invalid".

In law, liable means "responsible or answerable in law; legally obligated". Legal liability concerns both civil law and criminal law and can arise from various areas of law, such as contracts, torts, taxes, or fines given by government agencies. The claimant is the one who seeks to establish, or prove, liability.

Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency, respondeat superior, the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate or, in a broader sense, the responsibility of any third party that had the "right, ability or duty to control" the activities of a violator. It can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory of enterprise liability because, unlike contributory infringement, knowledge is not an element of vicarious liability. The law has developed the view that some relationships by their nature require the person who engages others to accept responsibility for the wrongdoing of those others. The most important such relationship for practical purposes is that of employer and employee.

Estoppel in English law

Estoppel in English law is a doctrine that may be used in certain situations to prevent a person from relying upon certain rights, or upon a set of facts which is different from an earlier set of facts.

In commercial law, a principal is a person, legal or natural, who authorizes an agent to act to create one or more legal relationships with a third party. This branch of law is called agency and relies on the common law proposition qui facit per alium, facit per se.

In law, the principle of imputation or attribution underpins the concept that ignorantia juris non excusat—ignorance of the law does not excuse. All laws are published and available for study in all developed states. The content of the law is imputed to all persons who are within the jurisdiction, no matter how transiently.

Directors' duties are a series of statutory, common law and equitable obligations owed primarily by members of the board of directors to the corporation that employs them. It is a central part of corporate law and corporate governance. Directors' duties are analogous to duties owed by trustees to beneficiaries, and by agents to principals.

<i>Aberdeen Rly Co v Blaikie Bros</i>

Aberdeen Railway Co v Blaikie Brothers (1854) 1 Paterson 394 is a UK company law case. It concerns the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and in particular, the duty not to engage in self-dealing. It laid down a basic rule that if a director had an interest in a corporate transaction, the transaction is voidable at the company's will, and it is the duty of directors to avoid any possibility of a conflict of interest.

Indian Contract Act, 1872 Contract Act

The Indian Contract Act, 1872 prescribes the law relating to contracts in India and is the key act regulating Indian contract law. The Act is based on the principles of English Common Law. It is applicable to all the states of India. It determines the circumstances in which promises made by the parties to a contract shall be legally binding. Under Section 2(h), the Indian Contract Act defines a contract as an agreement which is enforceable by law.

<i>Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd</i>

Hely-Hutchinson v Brayhead Ltd [1968] 1 QB 549 is a UK company law case on the authority of agents to act for a company.

Agency in English law is the component of UK commercial law that deals with the application of agency law in the United Kingdom, and forms a core set of rules necessary for the smooth functioning of business.

<i>Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp</i>

Rolled Steel Products (Holdings) Ltd v British Steel Corp [1986] Ch 246 is a UK company law case, concerning the enforceability of obligations against a company. The case was one of the last significant cases on ultra vires under English company law before the provisions abrogating that doctrine in the Companies Act 1985 became effective.

<i>Freeman v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd</i>

Freeman and Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 is a UK company law case, concerning the enforceability of obligations against a company.

Attribution of liability to United Kingdom companies involves the rules of contract, agency, capacity, tort and crime as they relate to UK company law. They establish under what circumstances a company may be sued for the actions of its directors, employees and other agents.

Directors' duties in the United Kingdom bind anybody who is formally appointed to the board of directors of a UK company.

The law of agency in South Africa regulates the performance of a juristic act on behalf or in the name of one person by another, who is authorised by the principal to act, with the result that a legal tie arises between the principal and a third party, which creates, alters or discharges legal relations between the principal and a third party. Kerr states that, in legal contexts, the word "agent" is most commonly used of a person whose activities are concerned with the formation, variation or termination of contractual obligations, and that agency has a corresponding meaning. It is the agent's position as the principal's authorised representative in affecting the principal's legal relations with third parties that is the essence of agency.

<i>Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd</i>

Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Co v Multinational Gas and Petrochemical Services Ltd [1983] Ch 258 is a leading United Kingdom company law case relating to directors' liability. The case is the principal authority for the proposition that a company will not be able to make any claim against a director for breach of duty where the acts of the director have been ratified by the members of the company.

<i>Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd</i>

Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 148 is a judicial decision of the English Court of Appeal. The decision related to a number of aspects relating to complex financing arrangement, but is most often cited for the decision in relation to recharacterisation.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.