Critical Analysis of the Principles of Agency

Critical Analysis – Agency
Your Name
Subject and Section
Professor’s Name
May 18, 2022
Understanding the underlying principles of the agency is essential for everyone. Whether the government, private entities, or individuals, acting relative to a given authority is essential to bind another person and employ legal remedies to protect one’s cause of action. In this article, the author would like to critically analyse the idea that the only actual case of the agency is when there is a prior, actual, and apparent manifestation of one’s authority. In contrast, this view believes that concepts of ratification, apparent authority and undisclosed agency are not “true agency” for the lack of specific requisites. To understand this, the following section will start with an analysis of this argument, followed by a critical appraisal of its application in the legal system. The author believes that, contrary to the espoused belief, all kinds of agencies are trustworthy for legal and practical purposes.
Real Agency
The concept of agency, as shown above, presupposed three requirements, namely; (1) that a person (agent) acted on behalf of another (principal), (2) that there is an actual and prior authority given, and (3) that the agent reveals to the third party that he is acting on behalf of the principal. Since the first requirement of acting on behalf of one another is essential to any kind and configuration of agent-principal relationship, the analysis would only revolve around the second and third requisites.
Prior and Actual Authority
On the one hand, the argument above believes that moral agency requires actual and prior authorisation. While part of this statement is genuine, it must be noted that the Court has consistently held that authority given ‘after’ – through ratification of the agent’s actions – is also a manifestation of the principal’s authority. For example, in the case of Yona Int’l Ltd. v. Réunion Française SA d’assurances (1996), the Court defined ratification as an “act by which the Principal agrees to an unauthorised action done by the A on the P’s behalf”. Accordingly, other cases elaborate that ratification also implies “an antecedent authority”, which means that despite the lack of authorisation, the subsequent actions of the principal retroacts to the very beginning of an action (Koenigs Blatt v Sweet, 1923).
Although there might be many individuals who belie...