Case Law of Contract Act 1872 Section 198
In the case of Premila Devi v. The People`s Bank of Northern India Ltd., the Privy Council, has decided that there can be no ratification without intent and that there can be no intention to ratify an illegal or irregular act without being aware of its illegality. This decision of the Privy Council was followed by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Lakshmi Ratan Cotton Mills Co.c. J.K. Jute Mills Co.In that case, it was decided that, in order to bind the alleged customer by ratification, it must be demonstrated that ratification by him with full knowledge of all the essential facts relating to the transaction to which it relates, has been done. The fundamental difference between consent and ratification is that consent is given when the act to be ratified is still in force, but that act has already been completed. Once the Act is complete, only ratification can take place. With this doctrine of ratification, there is a doctrine of relationship that says that something that is done today will be treated as if it had been done earlier. This means that the customer and the third party had a contract not after ratification, but from the date on which the agent concluded a contract with the third party. This doctrine does not arise if the contract concluded by the agent states that it is “subject to approval or ratification”. The third party may withdraw his consent until it is ratified.
Therefore, it has now placed both parties on the same power in the concept of revocation, which is essential for the supremacy of justice. 8. Contractual capacity The contracting entity shall be in conformity with the contract both at the time of conclusion of the contract and at the time of ratification. If the customer does not have legal capacity, the contract itself is invalid and therefore cannot be ratified if it has been performed by an agent. Pursuant to p. 196 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, a person may elect to ratify or refuse the act of another person if that other person performs an act on his or her behalf without his or her authority, knowledge or consent. Supreme Court of India Important Decisions and Jurisprudence Concerning Section 198 of the Treaties Act, 1872: Ratification is defined in section 196 of the Indian Treaties Act, 1872, which confirms the act removed from the excessive authority or lack of authority at all of the person acting as agent. This makes it as effective as it is previously allowed. In addition, the customer has the power to completely reject this action of the agent.
In one case, it was found that a person under the age of 18 had pledged his house to a lender for a loan of Rs. 30000. After the mortgage, the actual amount of the loan received was less than 30,000. The plaintiff stated that when he pledged his house, he was under the age of 18, so the contract with the lender was void. It has been established that the contract with a person under the age of 18 is void. It was also clarified that a person under the age of 18 cannot even enter into a contract through a guardian or other representative, as it would be an invalid contract and it cannot even be ratified by a person under the age of 18. Notification of ratification to the other party is essential, or the treaty, if ratified, can be maintained by subsequent transactions as legal in Ganpat Rao v. Iswar Singh.
In Arunugham v. Dara Singh received a promissory note from a person after obtaining the majority as a renewal of another promissory note that he had given during his minority in exchange for money then borrowed. Since the consideration for the promissory note is only the promissory note that was executed during the minority, the new promissory note was not enforceable. Pursuant to page 197 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872, ratification may be express or implied on behalf of the person who may choose to ratify or reject the transaction. The doctrine of ratification is an important doctrine of treaty law and is explained by the Latin maxim “Omnis ratihabitio retrorahitur et mandato priori aequiparatur”, which means that any ratification is delayed and equated with an earlier order or authority. This is a firm principle of agency law. The doctrine of ratification comes into play when a person has done something on behalf of another person, without his or her knowledge or consent. The other person on whose behalf the act is performed has the option of either accepting the act by ratification or refusing it altogether.
Under the Indian Contracts Act, the 1872 ratification is defined in section 196, which gives the right of the person on whose behalf the ratification was made and the effect of the ratification. He goes on to say that if the person ratifies the act performed on his behalf, the same effects would follow as if the actions were performed by his authority. This doctrine applies only to contracts that are questionable and not to contracts that are null or void from the outset, because they do not have the capacity to be legally enforced. According to S. 200 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, any act performed by a person on behalf of another person without any authority, knowledge or consent and, if performed with authority, may have the effect of causing harm to a third party or terminating a right or interest of a third party may not be formed by ratification in such a way that: that they have such an effect. Notification of ratification to another party is necessary or the treaty, if ratified, may be considered legal by other subsequent transactions. The basis of the relationship between an agent and his client is consent and the agent has the right to act on behalf of his client. This right also creates certain responsibilities and obligations of the contractor and the client. Section 182 of the Act defines that the Agent is a person appointed by another person to perform certain actions on his behalf and also to represent him before third parties. The person the officer represents is called the principal. Under contract law, the agency could be created by various means, one of which is – ratification, if consent to an act is given to someone who acted but had no power, or to an act that goes beyond the power conferred on the agent.
After the ratification of the law, the principal-agent relationship was born. It is also known as an ex post facto agency. Example: A B authorized, his agent, to buy grain from him. B supplied its own grain at a higher price A. A ratified the purchase without knowing that the grain belonged to B himself, and he demanded a higher price than the one on the market. Ratification by A was invalid because it took place with full knowledge of the facts. As part of faith in the law of free will, affirmation is useful as a wise and somewhat shredded question from the point of view of theory. This theory consists of a gag action to ensure that the principal or owner is final once the agent performs an associated unauthorized act. .
Recent Comments