Question

Wesley Hall, an independent contractor managing property for Acree Investments, Ltd., lost control of a fire he had set to clear ten acres of Acree land. The runaway fire burned seventy-eight acres of Earl Barrs’s property. Russell Acree, one of the owners of Acree Investments, had previously owned the ten acres, but he had put it into the company and was no longer the principal owner. Hall had worked for Russell Acree in the past and had told the state forestry department that he was burning the land for Acree. Barrs sued Russell Acree for the acts of his agent, Hall. In his suit, Barrs noted that Hall had been an employee of Russell Acree, Hall had talked about burning the land “for Acree,” and Russell Acree had apologized to Barrs for the fire. Barrs also pointed out that Acree Investments had not been identified as the principal property owner until Barrs filed his lawsuit. Barrs argued that those facts were sufficient to create an agency by ratification to impose liability on Russell Acree. Was Barrs’s agency by ratification claim valid? Why or why not?

Answer 1

I HOPE ITS HELPFUL TO YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS PLS COMMENTS BELOW..I WILL BE THERE TO HELP YOU...ALL THE BEST...

ANS ::-

AS FOR GIVEN DATA...

Wesley Hall, an independent contractor managing property for Acree Investments, Ltd., lost control of a fire he had set to clear ten acres of Acree land. The runaway fire burned seventy-eight acres of Earl Barrs’s property. Russell Acree, one of the owners of Acree Investments, had previously owned the ten acres, but he had put it into the company and was no longer the principal owner. Hall had worked for Russell Acree in the past and had told the state forestry department that he was burning the land for Acree. Barrs sued Russell Acree for the acts of his agent, Hall. In his suit, Barrs noted that Hall had been an employee of Russell Acree, Hall had talked about burning the land “for Acree,” and Russell Acree had apologized to Barrs for the fire. Barrs also pointed out that Acree Investments had not been identified as the principal property owner until Barrs filed his lawsuit. Barrs argued that those facts were sufficient to create an agency by ratification to impose liability on Russell Acree. Was Barrs’s agency by ratification claim valid? Why or why not?

EXPLANATION ::-

-- > most likely , the claim of agency by ratification will not hold .

--> first, an agency relationship is formed where there manifestation of consent of an agent to act on the behalf of the principal . an agent may have actual authority to act on the behalf of a principal. an agent may have actual authority to act on the nehalf of a principal regarding specific duties. however , an agent may also have apparent authority to make decisions

-->

the means that a third- party could reasonably belive that the agent has the authority to bind the principal in a contract . event if an agent does not have the authority . a principal can still be the held liable if they ratify the agent decision . a principal can ratify a decision onece he knowns all the facts and the third party have not revoked the transaction. a principal must ratify the decision in its entirety.

--> in this case, the original principal, a , no longer owned the company that H was apparenty acting on the behalf of A did not authorize H to burn the properlty , nor did a even have the authority to authorize H to do so because he was not an owner of the property.

--> furthermore, A merely apologized for the damage , but did not at any point claim responsibility or affirm H 's decision to burn the land . thus the agency by ratification claim will fail. a will not be found liable under this theory...

I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND...

PLS RATE THUMBS UP....ITS HELPS ME ALOT...

THANK YOU...!!