— — Part VII.
Katification.
181
as well, unless the wrong is justified by the being no justification for the commission of a tortious act that the wrong-doer is acting under another's authority, unless that other can justify the wrong (0). The person ratifying a contract has no right of action for any breach thereof committed before the time of ratification (p), and a ratification confers no new authority on the agent (q),
becomes
liable
ratification;
it
389. A ratification cannot operate to divest rights in rem which have become vested in third persons in the meantime (r), and does not relate back when persons other than the co-contracting party have
Sect.
5.
Effect of Ratification,
Vested rights not affected.
acquired interests prior to ratification (s). The ratification by the Crown of an act against a foreigner by a Ratification public official in excess of his authority makes the act of the official by Crown. an act of state in respect of which there is no legal remedy either against the official or the Crown {t).
Part
VIII.
— Relations
between
Principal
and Agent. Sect.
1.
In General.
390. The rights and duties arising out of the relation of principal Rights and and agent are to be ascertained by reference to the contract, express ^^^^^ or implied, which subsists between them (a). contract.
The mere existence of the relation raises the implication of a contract involving certain rights and duties, the nature and extent of which depend upon the circumstances of the particular case (&), and the parties, in entering upon the relation, may leave the incidents arising out of it to be determined wholly by reference to the rights and duties so implied (c). Where, however, the parties have defined their position by an express contract, the incidents of their relation depend upon their contract, as legally construed id), subject nevertheless to such of Stephens v. Elwall (1815), 4 M. & S. 259 Hilberij v. HaUo7i (1864), 2 Perkins y. Smith (1752), 1 Wils. (k. b.) 328; Whitehead v. Tmjlor (1839), 10 A. & E. 210 ; Hengh v. Earl of Ahergavenmj (1874), 23 W. E. 40. (p) Mayor of Kidderminster v. Hardwick (1873), L. E. 9 Exch. 13. (q) Irvine v. Union Bank of Australia (1877), 2 App. Cas. 366. (r) Donelly v. Popham (1807), 1 Taunt. 1 Bird v. Brown (1850), 4 Exch. ^ 786. (0)
H. &
0. 822
Re Gloucester Municipal Election Petition, [1901] 1 K. B. 683. Buron v. Penman (1848), 2 Exch. 167 Secretary of State in Council of India v. Kamachee Boye Sahaha (1859), 7 Moo. Ind. App. 476. See title (s)
(^)
Action, pp. 17, 18, ajite. (a) Love v. Mack (1905), 93 L. T. 352
Pole v. Leask (1863), 33 L. J. (CH.) 155.
See pp. 183 et seq., 193 et seq., post ; Shaw v. Woodcock (1827), 7 B. & C. 73, where the facts raised an inference of a del credere agency. {b)
^_
(c)
{d)
For agency by
necessity, see p. 157, ante.
Bull V. Price (1831), 7 Bing. 237.
