i) The question is on the law of agency. Therefore, a brief definition of who an agent is in the eyes of the law is very appropriate.

• An agent is a person who is authorized to act for another (principal) in the making of legal relations with third parties. If the Agent acts with authority, the contract will be valid and binding on the Principal. (1 mark)
• An agency relationship can be created by express agreement where the Agent is usually appointed to carry out a particular task, by appointment which is generally a contract between the Agent and the Principal, by the donation of a Power of Attorney to the person and other appointments must be made by a deed, this means that the Agent is being given the authority to deal with all the Principal’s property as defined in the Power of Attorney. (1 mark)
• Ratification is a very important aspect of any agency relationship. Suppose a properly appointed agent exceeds his authority or a person having no authority purports to act as an agent. In that case, the Principal incurs no liability on the contract purportedly made on his behalf unless the Principal ratifies the contract. (1 mark)
• By ratification, the Principal becomes liable under the contract. Ratification appears retroactively, meaning that the Principal is bound by the contract from the date on which it was originally made; the Agent is relieved from any liability to the Principal as to a third party.
• In the circumstance of this case, Adzo, the Agent was authorized by the third party, Makafui, to purchase the corn at (GH¢ 2,000.00), but he bought the same at a price far beyond his authority.
• Besides, Adzoe bought the corn in his name.
• As an Agent, Adzo was expected to work within the scope of his authority ie Adzo was authorized to buy corn at a certain price, but he bought the corn at a price far beyond his authority in buying the corn in his name, Adzo acted fraudulently as an agent of Maclean. (2 marks)
• Maclean will, therefore, not be justified to ratify the action taken by Adzoe.

In the instant case, Maclean may be justified in not ratifying the contract between Adzoe and Makafui because Adzoe’s intention when claiming to contract for Maclean was, in fact, fraudulent because he took the benefit for himself by buying the corn in his name, Adzoe acted fraudulently as an agent of Maclean. (1 mark)

ii) Agency of necessity:

Agency of necessity is an umbrella expression which two (2) quite distinct types of case may be found:

• The first type of case raises the central issue of agency of whether A is acting with P’s authority.
• The second type of case arises in similar circumstances of necessary emergency action but raises no agency issue.
• The only question is; Is a person who acted to preserve another person’s endangered property entitled to an indemnity for the cost to him of so acting?
• Indeed the agency of necessity originated in the needs and practices of the shipping business. Therefore, it was essential for the best interest of all concerned that the ship’s Master be empowered to react to all emergencies of the voyage without incurring personal liability.

From the above, the requirements that ought to arise are as follows:

• There is a pre-existing legal relationship between the parties.
• There is an emergency.
• The Agent can’t communicate with the Principal.
• The Agent is acting in the best interest of the Principal. (4 marks)