There are several ambiguous definitions

Running head: BUSINESS LAW
BUSNIESS LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

BUSINESS LAW1
Answer
1.
There are several ambiguous definitions under the law of Agency, which are questionable
and acknowledged as they are. They prove useful when constructing contracts or legislative
provisions, but their questionable validity can be deceptive if an entire subject is translated into
an explanatory sentence. Many authors are of the view that actual and apparent authority is quite
different from one another. They usually coexist and agree with each other but may have a wider
scope without the other (Jurkevičius & Pokhodun, 2019).
Actual authority is one a lawful relationship between the principal and the agent formed under an
agreement in which they are parties. If express terms, such as a resolution passed by the board of
directors allowing a director to hire architects are given, then this could be express. It is implied
when the action of the parties or situations of the case is resolved, for example, when one is
appointed by the board of directors as managing director (Naylor, 2014).
On the other hand, apparent authority is the authority under which an agent appears in
front of the other people to have as an outcome of certain depictions or behaviour by the
principal proposed to be performed upon the third party.
Therefore, it is evident from the above discussion that the actual authority is one which is
dependent on the agreement made between the principal and the agent, while the apparent
authority is one which is dependent upon the depiction made by the principal in front of the third
party. Thus, both forms of authority are not mutually related.

BUSINESS LAW2
2.
An agency contract can be formed in various ways. Among them, the most common
method is a written express agreement. Often, it also comes by participation. Apart from that two
other procedures are also discussed sometimes, namely estoppel and ratification.
Estoppel means that the principal does not oppose the agency relationship, because it
makes third parties assume that someone is his agent and the third party deals with the agent.
Although it has no existence in reality.
On the other hand, ratification means that if an individual who has no authority at all
continues to serve as an agent and the supposed principle eventually adopts that agent, an agency
relationship has been formed retroactively (Naylor, 2014).
However, both definitions are very similar, and in both cases, it is the Principal who acts
but in the sense of the confirmation they are distinct. In both cases, the relationship of the agency
was not perfect and established, and the previous agreement was a legal and binding agreement
by subsequent actions (Busch, Macgregor & Watts, 2016).
Example: Both Bill and Ron love vintage cars. Ron is a car mechanic. Bill is a physician and
wants to purchase a good car for an investment that will hopefully increase in value rather than
just depreciate. One day, Bob invites Ron to attend an auction for the vintage car. However, in
the auction, Bob failed to purchase a Corvette forbidding less. However, when next week's visits
that auction saw the same car as the successful bidder failed to close it. Here, in this situation,
Ron can sign the papers and perform his duties as an agent of Bill under agency estoppel or Ron
can by the car and Bill ratifies the deal between Ron and the owner under the agency
ratification.