Can a principal be held liable for breach of contract if a third party agrees to contract without consulting the principal?

Ontario, Canada

The following excerpt is from Ellas Restaurant (Scarborough) Ltd. v. Zejnelovski-Veseli, 2005 CanLII 25888 (ON SC):

The portions of the text that were highlighted by counsel are reproduced below: Where an agent in fact is expressly or impliedly authorized to contract with a third person on behalf of his principal, and the third person knows it and deals with the agent on that basis, there is no difficulty in concluding that a contract is formed between the principal and the third party. It is as though the principal were dealing directly with the third party, an agent forming a mere means of communication between two principal parties. The principal’s secret instructions to the agent do not alter the reasonableness of the third party’s expectation. It has been held in such circumstances that the principal is liable if the agent acts within the apparent or ostensible authority. The third party’s expectation is thereby preferred to the principal’s express wish not to contract. The agent has no “right” to disregard the principal’s instructions – the principal can sue the agent for breach of contract – but the agent has a “power” to bind the principal vis-a-vis the third party. One of two innocent parties must suffer for the agent’s default, and the risk is placed on the principal, perhaps because the principal has the better opportunity to investigate the agent’s trustworthiness, or perhaps because it is thought that the principal should absorb as one of the costs of the enterprise the loss caused by the agent’s defaults…The principal having led the third party to believe that the agent had authority is estopped from denying it after the third party’s reliance. If the agent did not have actual or apparent authority when dealing with the third party, the principal may still be liable if the latter subsequently ratifies the transaction. Again ratification may be by words, or, as in the case of Spiro v. Lintern, discussed in Chapter 5 above, by conduct. In such a case the principal’s conduct amounts to a manifestation of assent to the transaction, and it seems consistent with the general theories of contract formation that the principal should be held liable.

Other Questions

What is the current state of the law on liability for breach of contract where a third party has been found to have breached the contract? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the factors used to determine whether a party who has not made full disclosure under a contract signed a contract with another party would have signed the contract even if the disclosure had not been made? (Ontario, Canada)
How have courts dealt with a breach of a contract of suretyship under seal where a principal has been found to have breached the contract? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a servant liable to a tort action if he causes a breach of contract between his employer and a third party? (Ontario, Canada)
Can a fiduciary relationship between a party and the other party result in a breach of contract? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for interpretation of a commercial contract where the contract states that the contract is not a "contract with respect to the context or factual matrix"? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the consequences of a breach of contract where a plaintiff is entitled to a third party's "aggravated damages"? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for a party to a contract where the contract is not binding and the terms of the contract are not binding? (Ontario, Canada)
In what circumstances can a third party be liable for breach of trust as trustee de son tort? (Ontario, Canada)
If the parties cannot agree on costs, can they agree to pay the costs of a claim against Jevco Insurance Company? (Ontario, Canada)

Whitelogo nobg 300dpi sm

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.