The mentioned case has some important indications to lead this case to a

conclusion. The law book publisher acting as principle was interested to set up
another branch in Gold coast; and for this specific agenda completion, Tina, its
employee considered as agents moved there to screen out about the feasibility of
setting up the project over there. But what Tina was sipped to do wasnt done by
her as she made the decision by herself to lease suitable premises, spent on direct
advertising and also purchased a boat for the companys clients to make them relax
at the time of serving in business purposes. On top of that, there is no sign of
getting permission of doing those task from her employer; so, Tina went beyond her
authority to do all the thing with the 3 rd parties indicating those people who offered
the lease, advertisement and boat purchasing on account of her employer. As the
employer isnt interested now to go ahead for setting their branch in Gold coast.
Now the big question arises as Tina managed to lease, advertisement and purchase
of the boat on behalf of the employer on account; who is going to be liable to carry
on this accounts. Focusing the significant fact on this case, a probable path way will
be asserted which will create a logical conclusion with some important facts and
figures.

In this case, its not properly mentioned that Tina is acting what kind of agent. As
from the chapter of agency, its clearly indicated that there are three types of
agents; 1) Special Agent, 2) General Agent, & 3) Universal Agent. According to the
definition of special agent, it is appointed for doing some special assignments and
principal is being taken care of that particular transactions done by the agents. So,
in this case its not obvious that Tina was special agent or not. On the other hand, a
general agent has the authority to do any task on behalf of the principle. But that
should be specified by the principle that which type of task an agent needs to
perform. A universal agent is considered another face of the principle, here the
agent has the authority to do every task on behalf of the principle. So, from this
stated case, its not so conspicuous that what kind of agent is Tina for his employer,
the principle.

The relationship between agent and principle can be made in different ways; 1)
Expressing: Here, the relationship can be in 3 form; A) By Deed, B) By writing & C)
By word of mouth (WOM).1 In this case, what kind of relationship was in between
Tina and her employer, the principle is not significantly expressed. Its also
important to make it inform that whether Tina has any authority for taking decision
on behalf of the employer should be noted on either by deed, by writing or by word
of mouth. On top of that, the employer has introduced Tina to their partner in Gold
1 Power of attorney to enable attorneys dealing with land and property under the
Torrens system of registration. See Registration of Deeds Act 1935 (SA) s 35; Land
Title Act 1994 (QLD), ss 132-135, requiring registration of powers to validate such
dealings

coast that Tina is working as their agent. Nothing mentioned like that here is clearly
indicating that there is no direct sign of holding out or estoppel happened in this
case. Crabtree Vickers Pty Ltd v Australian Direct Mail Advertising & Addressing
Co Pty Ltd (1975) 133 CLR 72

As per the result of ratification, the relationship between the employer and Tina
could make a way to lead this case into a logical and important direction. 2 According
to the result of ratification, an agent can perform any task on behalf of the agent
and the agent may render the activation valid. But vice versa might happen as well.
The result of ratification happens where an agent has exceeded to employees.
There are some important parts to be judges in the time of ratification.
a. The employer had better the capacity to make the contact both at the date of
contact and the date of ratification.
b. All the time, the ratification will be based on whole contact what Tina did with
the 3rd parties as from where she has leased or purchased necessary stuffs
for the employer; accepting partial or avoiding partial couldnt be done in
ratification.
c. Ratification must be done with the full knowledge and concern of the
principle, here employer.

So from this case, did Tina have this kind of working experience 3 under or on behalf
of her employer early ages isnt specifically written on so that having that kind of
experience, Tina can take any decision for her company where there will be no
objection from her principle is not clearly indicated here. If Tina has done all the
things such as leasing new office premises for the office and spending on local
advertisement as well as purchasing boat for client recreation for setting up another
branch of that company in Gold coast, It is the indictor that Tina has that kind of job
description from her company or earlier Tinas those kind of decisions were
supported by the company which make her believe do all the action on behalf her
principle. But being fully acknowledged of all the act of Tina, if the company
withdraws their decision opening another branch in Gold coast, however, what Tina
spent for that project should be taken care by her employer as the relation has been
made by the result of ratification. Racing Queensland Limited [2012] FWA 6290 (25
July 2012)

On taking decision from those information given in this specific case, its pivotal to
know that nature and scope of an agents authority. There are two types of authority
2 Employment Agents Registration Act 1993 (SA), s 6;
3 Powers of Attorney & Agency Act 1984 (SA), s 12

handed by an agent. 1) Actual Authority: it indicates the legal relationship in

between agent and principle. Here there will be two types of actual authority; A)
expressed and B) implied. In this case, Tina has the implied authority of doing any
task on behalf of her employer. Tina can also be regarded as an aspect of her actual
and real authority. 4
On the other hand, the authority of Tina may be apparent or ostensible authority. As
in this authority nature, what Tina did for the company needs to be carried by the
employer as Tina has the authority to perform any task on behalf of the employer.
The 3rd parties will gradually count on the apparent agent as that Tina got all things
available for her company is the indicator of the fact that other parties believe Tina
as an ostensible agent.
But Tina, as an agent, didnt follow the instruction provided by her employer as she
was supposed to revert after watching the feasibility of setting new branch in Gold
coast with recommendation and she wasnt at all ordered to do any task on this
issue without getting concern of the principles. On the other hand, Tina was several
rights and the rights of lien is more effective in this case. As in this state, Tina can
obviously claim all the due payment of those expenses carried only for the
employers new office set up in new place. Starr v Department of Human Services
[2016] FWC 1460 (29 March 2016)

4 Debt collectors (Field Agent & Collection Agents) Act 2014 (QLD) s 14; Security &
Investment Industry Act 1995 (SA), s 6.