Bon Vivant Case

Bon Vivant will not be liable on the contract, but I the agent will be because of implied warranty of authoirty. Implied warrant of authoirty occurs if an agent contracts for a legally existing legal and competenet principle while lacking the authoirty to do so (pg. 943). In this case I neither have actual an/or apparent authority. Both my express and implied authoirty were taken away by Bon Vivant, when they set the limit of 10,000,000 and because an agents implied warranty cannot condradtict the principls express statmement, I have neither express and/ or implied authoirty (pg935). Furthermore, I lack apparent authoirty, beause it is common for individuals in my position to only have the authority to contract for the acquisitions of consumers
Ratification can be expressed or implied. Express ratification occurs when the principals manifests assent that his legal relations to be affected, such as stating orally that he or she wishes to be bound by the contract that has already been made (pg.938) which is what happened in this case. Implied ratification arises when the principals conduct justifies a reasonable assumption that he or she consents to the agents act (pg.938). There are additional requirements for ratification that can be found on page 938-939. In addition, a principals ratification is binding even if not communicated to the third aprty (pg.939) Therefore, the second the Board of directors agreed to the contract, they ratified it and were bound to its
Both I, the agent, and Bon Vivant (principal) will be liable. In this case the principal was unidentified (pg.941). The principal is unidentified if the third party knows or has reason to know that the agent is acting for a princila, but lacks knowlodge or reason to know the principals identity. A perfect example of this is found on page 941-942, the case of Treadwell vs J.D. Construction. Derr organized a corporation called JCDER, Inc., which he used to operate his construction business, however both Derr and JCDER, Inc, acted under the assumed name J.D. construction. Derr signed the contrct in that case on behalf of J.D. constructin, and hired subcontractos, and was believed to the contact person for the project. However, the court judged that Derr’s use of an assumed name was not sufficient to disclose his agency relationship with JCDER, Inc. JCDER, Inc. was therefore an unidentified principal and as matter of law, Derr was peronsally liable for performance entered into as agent for the non-existant J.D. construction