|
4.4-7 Ratification by the Principal
New October 8, 2010
Even if you do not find
that <name of agent> acted with express, implied or apparent authority to
bind the defendant in the <specify transaction>, the defendant may still
be liable to the plaintiff if the defendant ratified the actions of <name of
agent>.
To establish that the
defendant ratified the actions of <name of agent>, the plaintiff must
prove all of the following facts:
-
that the defendant had
full knowledge of the material circumstances surrounding the <specify
transaction>; and
-
that the defendant,
having the opportunity to reject <specify transaction>, willingly
accepted the resulting benefits and obligations.
Ratification can be proven
by direct or circumstantial evidence. Consequently, in deciding whether the
defendant ratified the transaction, you should consider all the facts and
circumstances as to whether the defendant expressed (his/her/its) intent to do
so or whether such intent can be reasonably and logically inferred.
If you find all of these
facts to have been proven by the plaintiff, the defendant is bound by all of the
terms of <specify transaction> and is, therefore, liable to the plaintiff
for <specify>. If the plaintiff has failed to prove any one of these
facts, then the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.
Authority
Russell v.
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 200 Conn. 172, 185 (1986); New Milford
Block & Supply Corp. v. N. Grondahl & Sons, Inc., 51 Conn. App. 454,
458, cert. denied, 248 Conn. 901 (1999).
|
