RATIFICATION OF CONTRACT UNDER THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872

This article is written by Palak Anand of BA LLB of 3^rd Sem of JIMS EMTC , Greater Noida, an intern under Legal Vidhiya

ABSTRACT

The doctrine of ratification is a fundamental principle in contract law that allows a party to validate an act or a contract initially entered into without authority. This doctrine helps to provide a mechanism for giving retrospective consent, thus ratifying the legitimacy of any action and agreement that might be invalid otherwise. This paper expounds on the nuances of the doctrine of ratification while tracing its historical evolution, exploring the legal framework, and providing practical application. Special attention is given to the conditions under which ratification occurs, including explicit and implicit means of approval, as well as limitations imposed by public policy or statutory provisions. Key case laws from jurisdictions like the United States, the United Kingdom, and India are analysed to illustrate how courts interpret and enforce this doctrine. With its critical analysis of landmark judgments, this paper underlines the benefits and drawbacks connected with ratification and brings to the forefront issues in third-party implications and matters of agency relationships. Finally, the conclusion highlights the function of the doctrine in encouraging fairness and efficiency in the conduct of contractual dealings.

Keywords

Doctrine of Ratification, Contract Law, Agency, Authority, Case Law, Legal Doctrine, Retrospective Consent.

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine of ratification has an important place in contract law, especially when the agency relationship or the unauthorized act is concerned. Grounded on the concept of retrospective consent, ratification affords a legal basis by which a principal may ratify an act done on his behalf without previous authority. The theory, thus, is not abstract but rather very practically applicable in most commercial transactions, partnerships, and corporate governance. Historically, the doctrine was a necessity in the management of agency relationships, wherein human actions were unpredictable, and commerce was complex, making a framework necessary to legitimize unauthorized acts. It fills the gap between unauthorized acts and lawful authority, so that business transactions are not unduly disturbed by technical defects in authority. The legal basis for ratification is rooted in common law principles and statutory provisions in different jurisdictions. Doctrine functions on the assumption that the moment the act is ratified it is regarded as if authorized from the beginning. Nonetheless, procedure is conditioned by strict necessities. Ratification must be clear, should have been carried out by an individual fully aware of the act in question and neither should it prejudice third parties nor be contrary to the public policy.

This paper intends to plunge into the depths of the theory of ratification, starting from the concept and history that has rooted it. The discussion continues with a detailed account of essential elements, limitations, and exemptions of the doctrine by further analysing landmark case laws. The study aims to explain how the doctrine of ratification balances the interests of principals, agents, and third parties through an examination of judicial interpretations and practical applications, contributing to the overall efficiency and equity of contract law. Ratification, moreover, is not a product of modern times but has deep historical roots tracing back to the early common law. Its development was, in many ways, a response to the complexities of human actions in the unpredictable world of commerce, where situations arose frequently that required retrospective approval. Without such a doctrine, many legitimate transactions could be rendered void, leading to inefficiency and uncertainty in commercial relationships. Historically, ratification was especially vital in cases where an agent acted without clear authority due to the impracticalities of obtaining prior approval, and this practice has continued to evolve with the expansion of commercial enterprises and the sophistication of agency laws. Today, the theory of ratification remains integral to both small-scale business transactions and large corporate governance. It enables businesses to navigate more smoothly by recognizing the pragmatic realities of agency as well as the necessity for flexibility in the processes of decision-making. However, at the same time, it guarantees that such flexibility does not operate without any rulebook; instead, it provides a legal basis for fairness, transparency, and protection of third-party rights. This paper delves into the subtleties of the doctrine, analysing its core concepts, historical background, and its contemporary relevance in managing the delicate balance between principal, agent, and third-party interests within contract law.

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF RATIFICATION

In contract law, ratification refers to the act by which a principal affirms and adopts a previously unauthorized act performed on their behalf. It retroactively grants authority to the actions of the agent, which would have been otherwise considered voidable or unenforceable. The principle of ratification lies in its retrospective effect, thereby validating acts otherwise deemed voidable or unenforceable. The doctrine fundamentally rests on the principle of agency, which covers relationships where one party, the agent, acts for another, known as the principal. Upon ratifying an unauthorized act, the principal assumes all responsibility for that act and its consequences. This provides a basis for certainty and stability in contractual dealings. The origins of the doctrine of ratification trace back to Roman law, where it was identified as a method to validate unauthorized acts. The common law jurisdictions later adopted and developed the doctrine, putting it within the larger framework of agency law. Landmark cases, for example, Wilson v. Tumman[1] in 1843 and Bolton Partners v. Lambert[2] in 1889, established foundational principles relating to the retrospective nature of ratification and third party effects. The doctrine of ratification finds practical application in several legal and commercial contexts. For example, in corporate governance, a board may ratify acts performed by an individual director without authorization and thus give validity to what otherwise would be invalid decisions. Again, in partnership law, a partner may ratify the acts undertaken by another partner in the name of the firm, ensuring business continuity. In Indian jurisprudence, courts have often applied the doctrine to validate contracts and transactions. For instance, in Haji Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal (1978)[3], the Supreme Court of India held that ratification had a retroactive effect, and acts performed without prior authority could be validated through subsequent approval. Similarly, in S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian, 2000 Kerala High Court[4]: The conditions for valid ratification, as laid down by the court, were full knowledge and timely affirmation. It is also an important doctrine in public administration. The government authorities can ratify acts done without authorization by their subordinate officers. This procedure ensures the smooth functioning of administrative procedures with accountability and respect to legal principles.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF RATIFICATION

The essential elements of ratification provide a structure within which its valid application becomes structured. First, it requires an identifiable unauthorized act of an agent or a person representing the principal. This will then be the basis on which the principal affirms what has been done. The principal must be able to have the legal capacity to authorize the act both when the act was performed and at the time of ratification. This is in ensuring that the ratification will be valid and can be enforced. The third one, the principal must be well aware of all the material facts associated with the unauthorized act. Ignorance of the facts invalidates the ratification. The ratification must be express or constructive through unequivocal conduct indicating the principal’s acceptance of the act. Silence or inaction may, in some circumstances, be construed as implied ratification. The ratification should also be made within a reasonable time so that no prejudice is caused to third parties. This is essential when the unauthorized act impacts the rights or interests of third parties. This provides together elements, ensuring integrity and equity within the process of ratification.[5] In addition to these essential ingredients, ratification must harmonize with general legal principles in that it must be consistent with requirements of statutes and public policy. Thus, for example, ratification cannot validate an illegal act, being against public interest per se. Also, it must clearly appear that the principal manifested his intention to adopt the unauthorized act. Acts such as acceptance of benefits arising from the unauthorized act or making statements affirming the validity of the act are strong indicators of ratification. By following these elements, the doctrine ensures that ratification is applied in a manner that upholds equity and legal certainty. As is the case with ratification being retrospectively available, the very act of ratification works as though it were valid when it actually took place. Thereby, such retrospective influence will considerably determine, especially where the unauthorized act inflicts injury upon contractual performance or otherwise interferes with rights of third parties. Then, a clear intention by the principal to ratify must emerge clearly to eliminate ambiguity or cause litigation. Another factor to be considered is the communication of ratification. The ratification by the principal should be communicated to the relevant parties, especially when the act involves contractual relationships. Inability to communicate ratification may lead to misunderstandings or disputes, which defeat the purpose of the doctrine. Lastly, the conduct of the principal after ratification is decisive for the confirmation of ratification. Acts that are consonant with the terms of the ratified act, such as performing contractual obligations or accepting benefits, confirm ratification. Inconsistent acts or repudiation after ratification can invalidate the ratification, which can lead to problems in court. Addressing these additional considerations provides the essential elements of ratification with a strong framework for its application. They ensure that the doctrine operates within the bounds of fairness, legal certainty, and adherence to public policy.

JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS AND SIGNIFICANT CASE LAWS

1. Bolton Partners v. Lambert, (1889): This ruling further consolidated the law in stating that ratification retrospective applies back to the moment of the unauthorized act binding the principal. This clears up a case in that an unauthorized act becomes as lawfully valid once ratified, the same way as one originally approved by the principal. For this reason, retrospective application is very important for ensuring consistency and predictability in contractual relationships-especially where third-party rights are involved.[6]
2. Watson v. Davies, 1931 :The Court opined on the importance of having perfect knowledge of the material facts for ratification. It underscored that ratification made in ignorance of critical details undermines the principle of informed consent, thereby rendering the ratification invalid. This judgment highlighted the importance of transparency and full disclosure in ratification processes to protect the integrity of contractual dealings.[7]
3. Keighley, Maxsted  & Co v. Durant (1901): This case highlighted that ratification must be done in a manner that is consistent with the principal’s legal obligations and must not be in conflict with statutory provisions. The Court clarified that ratification cannot be used to circumvent legal restrictions or obligations, thus protecting the doctrine from being misused. This case is important in establishing that ratification is not an absolute right but is subject to broader legal and ethical constraints. [8]
4. Haji Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal (1978) of India: The Supreme Court of India has discussed the principle of retrospective validation through ratification and emphasized the practical effects of such ratification. The judgment also reiterated that ratification has to meet certain legal criteria, such as the knowledge of material facts by the principal and compliance with statutory norms.[9]
5. S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian (2000): Kerala High Court held in this case that even a ratified subsequent unauthorized transaction by an agent can be validated provided that it adheres to the conditions of valid ratification. The Court underlined the retrospective effect of ratification and its power to validate acts that may otherwise disturb contractual or agency relationships. This case is important, not least for its subtle analysis of conditions in which ratification has a role to play.[10]
6. Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (1962): The Indian Supreme Court tackled ratification in municipal law, further demonstrating how public authorities can validate unauthorized acts retroactively. The case demonstrated how the governmental authorities can retroactively validate unauthorized acts to ensure administrative efficiency if such acts do not contravene statutory or constitutional mandates. The judgment illustrates the balance between administrative convenience and legal principles.[11]
7. Indian Association v. Krishnaji Govind (1910): The Bombay High Court dealt with the limitation of ratification, especially when third-party rights and public policy are involved. The judgment clarified that ratification cannot override established rights or contravene public interest, ensuring that the doctrine is applied equitably and judiciously. This case is often cited to illustrate the boundaries within which ratification operates, especially when conflicting interests are at stake.[12]

LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO RATIFICATION

Despite its wide applicability, the doctrine of ratification is, however, subject to several limitations and exceptions that restrain its operation. First, acts that contravene public policy or statutory provisions cannot be ratified because such acts are void ab initio and cannot be validated retrospectively. This ensures that the doctrine is not misused to legitimize unlawful activities. Second, ratification cannot prejudice the rights of third parties. In other words, if a third party has acted in reliance of an apparent lack of authority, then it will not be possible to subsequently ratify the act so that it is prejudicial to the third party. Lastly, full knowledge of all material facts should exist at the time of ratification by the principal. This lack of such knowledge makes the ratification invalid because it works to undermine the principle of informed consent. Fourth, the doctrine does not apply where the unauthorized act is incapable of ratification, such as acts requiring prior statutory approval or those involving personal rights that cannot be delegated. Finally, the timing of ratification is critical; it must occur within a reasonable period, especially when delays could jeopardize the interests of third parties or disrupt ongoing transactions. Courts have emphasized that undue delays in ratification may render it ineffective, as they can undermine the stability and predictability of contractual relations. These limitations collectively ensure that the doctrine of ratification is applied judiciously, maintaining a balance between legal flexibility and adherence to established principles. Apart from these general limitations, there are some exceptions depending on the context. For example, unauthorized acts that change the legal rights or obligations of third parties may not be ratified.

Ratification is also ineffective if it goes against the principal’s statutory obligations or fiduciary duties. Public authorities, for example, cannot ratify acts that go beyond their jurisdiction or violate constitutional mandates. These limitations collectively ensure that the doctrine of ratification is applied judiciously and maintains a balance between legal flexibility and adherence to established principles. By adhering to these constraints, courts ensure that the principle of ratification does not become a tool for circumventing legal safeguards, thus preserving the integrity of contractual and agency relationships. Ratification also requires that the principal’s conduct be unequivocal and clearly indicate an intention to ratify the unauthorized act. Ambiguous or vague actions by the principal may not be sufficient to meet the threshold of valid ratification. Ratification cannot also give rise to rights or obligations that were not contemplated at the time of the original unauthorized act. For example, if an agent makes unauthorized terms that are outside the principal’s expressed limits, ratification cannot include those unauthorized terms unless it is specified. In the corporate case, the board of directors should act within their authority in ratifying unauthorized decisions or transactions. Failure to comply with corporate governance standards and statutory requirements may nullify the ratification and subject the entity to legal risks. Similarly, in the case of partnership, all partners must ratify acts that affect the partnership as a whole. Ratification is also subject to the principles of estoppel and waiver. A principal who explicitly or implicitly waives the right to ratify an act may lose the opportunity to do so later. For the same reasons, if conduct by the principal leads a third party to believe ratification will not occur, subsequent ratification may be prevented from occurring by estoppel in the courts. Understanding these subtle limitations and exceptions by applying the doctrine of ratification allows for the smooth functioning of fairness, protection against abuse, and maintaining compliance with the overarching framework of law.

JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF DELAYED RATIFICATIONS

The doctrine of ratification, while granting room for principals to validate unauthorized acts, places a very essential requirement: ratification has to be done within reasonable time. The courts have been very consistent in stating that undue delay in ratification will defeat the stability and predictability of contractual relationships between the parties involved as well as third-party interests. Judicial scrutiny of delayed ratifications is aimed at seeing to it that the application of the doctrine is in such a manner that does justice to all the interested parties. The principle of timeliness in ratification has its roots in the requirement of preventing prejudice to third parties. The courts have ruled that where a third party acts in reliance upon the apparent lack of authority, delayed ratification cannot retrospectively affect their rights or liabilities. For example, while in Bolton Partners v. Lambert the court confirmed retrospective operation of ratification, it indicated that delay can create cases of manifest unfairness resulting from disappointed third party expectancies. The rights of principals and third parties thus appear to be balanced in such a judicial approach to delayed ratifications.[13] The effect of delay has also been found to go to the very nature of the unauthorized act itself. Courts have analysed whether such delay has rendered the act devoid of practical significance or operational utility. In Watson v. Davies, the court noted that ratification must be compatible with the contemporaneous circumstances in which the act was made; delays which render an act ineffective or obsolete invalidate the ratification.[14] This approach guards against improper use of the doctrine as a means to revive acts that have lost their purpose. Indian courts have also stressed the necessity of ratification within a timely manner, especially in the context of commercial transactions. In Haji Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed that ratification must be done without procrastination to uphold the sanctity of the contract. It has been further emphasized that the delay must be justified by exceptional circumstances, in the absence of which ratification may be considered invalid. [15] In Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee, the court analysed the timing of ratification within the context of municipal action, pointing out that public administrative delays undermine governance and certainty of law. [16]Judicial scrutiny of delayed ratifications often involves a consideration of the principal’s conduct. Courts evaluate whether the principal’s delay indicates an implicit rejection of the unauthorized act. Prolonged silence or inaction may be interpreted as a refusal to ratify, especially when third parties have acted in reliance on the apparent absence of authority. This approach aligns with the broader principles of equity, ensuring that the principal’s conduct does not result in unjust enrichment or harm to third parties. In addition, retrospective ratification is not forever. When ratification happens long after the passage of time, courts will look at whether, due to the passage of time, the law had changed such that ratification would be unfair. In Keighley, Maxsted & Co v. Durant, the court has noted that delays which impact third-party rights or expectations could amount to a nullification of ratification.[17] This is meant to ensure that ratification effectively achieves its purpose of validating acts rather than creating uncertainty and injustice. In conclusion, judicial scrutiny of delayed ratifications shows that the courts strive to find a balance between flexibility and fairness. Through reasonable time constraints, the judiciary provides protection to the integrity of the doctrine, thus ensuring its proper functioning in the ambit of equity and legal certainty. This kind of scrutiny not only safeguards third-party interests but also strengthens the very foundation of agency and contract law.

FUTURE OF RATIFICATION

The doctrine of ratification long played a stalwart role within the resolution of the problems of an agency in contracts. With increased digital transactions and the growth in e-commerce in recent times coupled with the burgeoning complexities of more sophisticated business setups, the course of ratification in future would see ample growth. In India, with the rapidly changing economy and changing legal scenario, ratification will be yet another key element that will have its place in commercial activities, though applied and interpreted differently in the light of modern conditions of contract law.

1. Digital Transactions and Ratification

Digital commerce is here to stay. The scope of ratification would expand in such an age. Electronic transactions and digital contracts have been proliferating, making the situation complicated for traditional agency principles. For example, where an agent makes an online contract without obtaining any prior authority from the principal, the judicially developed rules regarding the possibility of ratification after the fact by the principal would need clarification. Indian courts will have to decide whether ratification can be implied from electronic communications such as emails or digital signatures and whether technological advancements like blockchain contracts change the application of traditional principles of ratification.

2. Corporate Governance and Ratification

Corporate governance will also remain under the domain of ratification as a growing issue. Indian corporate law has, during the introduction of the Companies Act, 2013, passed through several changes, which emphasize improving the framework for governance. Ratification comes under the fold in governing the role and responsibilities of directors and officers in a company. Ratification could be used for the validation of actions taken by company officers when they are out of their powers, especially when the actions in question are involving shareholders’ disputes or those taken without sufficient board approval. However, because corporate transactions grow more complex, there is also a likelihood of increased reliance on regulatory oversight that will ensure ratification is not misused as an escape route around governance rules.

3. International Trade and Cross-border Ratification

As Indian businesses become more involved in cross-border trade and international contracts, the practice of ratification in an international context will need to be subjected to greater scrutiny. Legal systems worldwide may have different perspectives on the principles of ratification, and this may create challenges in enforcing contracts when an agent acts beyond their authority. Indian companies operating in international trade will have to ensure that the principles of ratification are applied across jurisdictions and the Indian law may have to assimilate conventions of other nations or harmonize its approach to apply the ratified contract uniformly.

4. Reformation of Ratification Principles

Ratification as a doctrine is as old as the contract itself, but it still remains controversial. Some Indian authors argued that ratification has to be made more flexible and less rigid. For instance, in commercial transactions, speed and flexibility are highly essential. The old principle that ratification must be clear and express may become too rigid for certain cases in which parties must be allowed to ratify acts more flexibly, especially for large-scale transactions or commercial activities with time-sensitive outcomes. Scholars like Professor R.K. Sinha[18] and Dr. M. C. Gupta[19] are of the view that ratification process should be viewed in the new light of complex business law evolving with time in a more flexible mode that would honor the fundamental value of fairness and transparency.

5. Judicial Interpretation and Adaptation

According to the rulings of Indian courts, which have played a critical role in the progressive developing process of adapting the doctrine of ratification to the needs of the business community, it has been ruled in the case of Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (1962)[20] that the role of ratification under local governance contracts warrants ratification to take place within a reasonable time frame so as not to prejudice third-party rights. As Indian business practices evolve and become more globalized, it is likely that the judiciary will continue to play a central role in interpreting ratification, adjusting it to the modern requirements of efficiency and legal certainty while safeguarding the interests of third parties.

6. Protection of Third-Party Interests

Undoubtedly, one of the most critical limitations on ratification is the protection of third-party interests. The rights of innocent third parties cannot be retroactively varied by ratification, where such third parties have relied on an agent’s apparent authority. This principle will remain fundamental to India, as businesses continue interacting with various stakeholders in complex transactions. Whether the Indian judiciary will be able to strike a balance between the flexibility of ratification and protection of third-party rights will decide the future utility of the doctrine in light of the dynamic commercial norms. N. Rajgopal v. National Textile Corporation (1976) [21] have driven home the importance of not allowing ratification to unfairly prejudice third parties who, in good faith, have relied on the actions of agents.

7. Ratification and Public Policy

The doctrine of ratification will continue to be constrained by the principle that it cannot be used to validate acts that are illegal or contrary to public policy. This safeguard ensures that ratification does not act as a loophole for unlawful conduct. As India continues to grapple with issues such as corruption, corporate fraud, and economic crimes, it is essential that ratification is not used to legitimize actions that violate public policy or basic legal principles. Future legal reforms may strengthen this limitation to ensure that ratification remains a tool for validation, not one for circumventing public laws.

CONCLUSION

The doctrine of ratification occupies a vital position in contract and agency law, bridging unauthorized actions and lawful authority. Ratification upholds the principle of autonomy while fostering flexibility and fairness in legal and commercial relationships by allowing a principal to retrospectively validate acts undertaken on their behalf without prior authorization. This mechanism plays a crucial role in dealing with the complexities of modern trade, collaborations, and other governmental affairs where unexpected situations or lapses in authority may occur. On a deeper level, ratification goes along with the underlying tenets of law, equity, fairness, and sanctity of contract. By validating previous acts that were not authorized in the first place, the doctrine of ratification ensures respect for the parties’ intent and mutual obligations. Its retrospective effect ensures that the moment it is ratified, an act is treated as having been authorized from the very inception. This will result in stability and predictability in dealings over contracts; it ensures technical defects in authority do not jeopardize otherwise legitimate transactions, or derail business. However, the operation of ratification is subjected to stringent conditions to safeguard its integrity and prevent misuse. The ratification elements such as full knowledge of the principal of material facts, legal capacity to make the act, unequivocally of approval, and also timeliness of ratification ensure that there is judicious application of this doctrine. These conditions strike balances between the interests of both principals, agents, and third parties to prevent injustice or prejudice. Judicial scrutiny of ratification, especially in delays, highlights the need for compliance with these elements. Courts have held that undue delay in ratification can lead to unjust outcomes, especially when third party rights or expectations are involved.

The principle that ratification needs to be within a reasonable period reiterates the efficiency and certainty needed in contractual and agency relationships. By landmark cases in the jurisdictions, the courts have defined strict principles for applying this doctrine and avoided its flexibility at the expense of undermining rule of law and public policy. Its further limitation and exception indicate the outer limits of this doctrine. That is, no act contravenes any statutory provisions, public policy, or the violation of any basic rights is inherently void and cannot be ratified. Similarly, ratification cannot prejudicially affect the rights of third parties who acted in reliance of the lack of authority. These restrictions ensure that the doctrine operates within the boundaries of legality and fairness, and preserves its role as a validation tool for legitimate action rather than as an instrument to circumvent legal safeguards. The Indian legal system, based on common law doctrine and statutory provisions like the Indian Contract Act, 1872, provides a strong grounding for the application of the doctrine of ratification. While codifying its essential elements and limitations under Indian jurisprudence, predictability and consistency in the workings of the doctrine are well ensured. Landmark decisions include Haji Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal and Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee exemplify the judiciary’s fine line between ratification and the rights and obligations of all parties involved. The doctrine of ratification is a reflection of how flexible and robust legal systems can be in responding to dynamic needs in society. Validating unauthorized acts within a structured framework helps enhance the efficiency and equity of contractual dealings. Yet it is in its applications that it needs to respect all the established principles preventing the abuse and maintaining law in order. While commerce and governance evolves further, the doctrine of ratification will continue to maintain an anchor for legal and contract relationship; flexibility and fairness both existing side by side with law.

The continuing relevance of the doctrine of ratification in modern commerce and governance further underscores its adaptability and importance. In an ever-evolving commercial landscape, ratification ensures that unauthorized acts are not automatically voided, allowing businesses to continue operating without being paralyzed by minor breaches in authority. Yet, its role is carefully confined within a framework that ensures fairness, transparency, and respect for legal rights. Going forward, the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of commerce will ensure that the doctrine of ratification will remain at the heart of contract law. In this sense, it provides an orderly and effective way to solve problems regarding unauthorized acts. Its continued relevance lies in its consistent application with the spirit of the principles: flexibility, fairness, and respect for the boundaries of law. The doctrine stands as a testament to the capacity of the legal system to adapt to new challenges while upholding the values of integrity and equity in contractual dealings.

REFERENCES

1. The Indian Contract Act, 1872
2. Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book Company, 12th Edition, 2021
3. Anson’s Law of Contract, Oxford University Press, 30th Edition, 2016
4. Indian Supreme Court Commentary on Ratification Principles (from SCC Online archives)
5. Legal Information Institute (LII), Cornell Law School, “Doctrine of Ratification,” www.law.cornell.edu.
6. R. Goode, “Ratification and Its Retrospective Effect,” Modern Law Review, Vol. 44, 1981, pp. 78-99.
7. Pollock & Mulla, Indian Contract and Specific Relief Act, LexisNexis, 15th Edition, 2022
8. English Law of Agency (Common Law Principles)
9. J. H. Baker, “The Historical Development of the Law of Agency,” Cambridge Law Journal
10. Sinha, R.K., Principles of Contract Law in India, 2nd Ed., 2020
11. Gupta, M.C., Modern Contract Law in India, 3rd Ed., 2018

---

[1] Wilson v. Tumman (1843) 6 M&W 531

[2] Bolton Partners v. Lambert (1889) 41 Ch D 295

[3] Haji Mohd. Ishaq v. Mohd. Iqbal (1978) AIR 1978 SC 798

[4] S. Bhaskaran v. Sebastian (2000) 1 KLT 803

[5] Avtar Singh, Law of Contract and Specific Relief, Eastern Book Company, 12th Edition, 2021

[6] Ibid

[7] Watson v. Davies (1931) 1 Ch 455

[8] Keighley, Maxsted & Co v. Durant [1901] AC 240

[9] Ibid

[10] Ibid

[11] Dr. H.S. Rikhy v. The New Delhi Municipal Committee (1962) AIR 1962 SC 554

[12] Indian Association v. Krishnaji Govind (1910) ILR 34 Bom 641

[13] J. H. Baker, “The Historical Development of the Law of Agency,” Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1977, pp. 47-79.

[14] A.L. Goodhart, “Ratification in Agency Law,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 45, 1932, pp. 715-732

[15] G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Agency, Butterworths, 7th Edition, 2012

[16] Ibid

[17] Ibid

[18] Sinha, R.K., Principles of Contract Law in India, 2nd Ed., 2020

[19] Gupta, M.C., Modern Contract Law in India, 3rd Ed., 2018

[20] Ibid

[21] N. Rajgopal v. National Textile Corporation, AIR 1976 SC 295

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.