Ratification In The Case Of Kelner V Bilsland

Part A

In this case, Kallessi Mc Tavish is the principal, Maya Stork is the agent and the new suppliers are the third party. Firstly, this is a case of ratification as all the requirements of ratification are met, i.e. there is a clear principal in existence. This requirement can be contradicted with the case of Kelner V Baxter 1866 LR 2 CP 174, where the directors ordered goods before the company was even formed and so could not be held to pay for the goods. Principal is in capacity. Ratification is timeous and can be contradicted with the case Goodall V Bilsland 1909 SC 1152, where the solicitor had 10 days to appeal against a license renewal of a wine merchant and won the case but the wine merchant appealed against this as the solicitor didn’t have the consent of his principals, and was successful. The 10 day period to appeal against the renewal of the license of the wine merchant had expired and hence, the solicitor could not appeal again. Agent was acting as agent in the sense that the supplier knew that Maya was an agent and was working for Kallessi. This can be contradicted with the case Keighley Maxted and Co V Durant [1901] AC 240, here Keighley and Co were the principal and Roberts was the agent and Durant was the third party. Roberts did not disclose to Durant that he was an agent acting for someone else and entered into a contract with Durant to buy wheat at a higher price than what he was said to buy at by Keighley and Co. Keighley and Co and Roberts failed to