In itself and not illegal, and to which effect may be given

as against the party, by his acquiescence in and adoption

of the transaction."

Ashharij Railway Carriar/e Company v. Riche (1875),

L. R. 7 H. L. 653 ; here it was held that a principal

could only ratify a contract when at the time of such

ratification he was himself competent to make such a

contract.

Athy Guardians v. Murphy (18JJG), 1 Ir. R. 65 ; here

It was held that, though a subsequent ratification may

supply the want of authority in an agent at the time he

accepts an offer, still it must be shown in such a case that

there was such a contract, purporting to be made by and

with the agent, as would be a binding contract if the agent

had had the principal's authority.

But it seems that there is, in the case of contracts of

marine insurance, an exception to the rule that a person

can only ratify when he is at the time himself capable of

making the contract in question.

Williams v. North China Insurance Company (1876),

1 C. P. D. 757 ; here it was held that, where a policy of

marine insurance is made by one person on behalf of another,

without that other's authority, it may be ratified, even

after the loss of the property insured, by the person on

whose behalf it was made, even though he knows of such

loss at the time of the ratification ; and that this was an

exception to the general rule, that one who ratifies a

contract must himself have power to make it, which was

justified by convenience, and too long established to be

questioned then.

16 The law of agency,

(e) The principal's ratification must take place within

ft certain time, in order to be operative.

Walter v. James (1871), L. R. 6 Ex. 124 ; here it was

held that where a payment had been made for the benefit

of the debtor, by an agent who, though unauthorized to

pay, expected to be reimbursed by the debtor, it was com-

petent for the creditor by agreement with the professing

ao-ent, to rescind the transaction at any time before the

debtor had ratified, and to repay the money ; and thereupon

the payment was at an end, and it was too late for the

principal to ratify the agent's act.

Dihhins v. Dibbins {IS9Q), 2 Ch. 348; here it was held

that where a professing agent, without authority, had

accepted an option of purchase of a share in a partnership,

which option had to be exercised within a fixed time, in

order to make the acceptance operative, the principal could

only ratify before that time expired.

It seems, however, that when a professing agent has,

without authority, entered into a contract, the supposed

principal may adopt and ratify that contract within any

reasonable time, although the other party thereto has in the

mean time withdrawn his ofler and repudiated the contract.

Bolton Partners V. Lambert (18Sd), ^1 Ch. D. 295. C. A.;

here the defendant made an offer of purchase to a certain

Scratchley, who was agent to the plaintifi' company, but

was not authorized to make any contract for sale.

Scratchley accepted the ofier on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Defendant subsequently withdrew his offer, and after such

withdrawal the plaintiffs ratified Scratchley's acceptance of

the offer. The plaintiffs brought an action for the specific

performance of the contract. The Oourt of Appeal held that

the ratification l)y the plaintiffs related back to the accept-

ance by Scratchley, and therefore the withdrawal by the

defendant was inoperative, and the plaintiffs were entitled

to specific jierformance.

FORMATION OF AGENCY. 17