How To Prove A California Ratification Defense

 

 

In California, a defense of Ratification is defined as:

Ratification is the giving of one’s approval or confirmation of the conduct of another such that one cannot complain about that conduct later.

It simply means:

Condoning an act that has already been done.

There are 3 elements of the defense:

• Element 1. A party or agent, although not authorized to do so, purported to act on behalf of the plaintiff. A ratification defense occurs when someone acts on behalf of another person without permission, but the person later accepts and approves those actions as if they were authorized.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The individual presented themselves as an authorized representative of the plaintiff during negotiations with the third party.
  * The third party relied on the individual’s statements, believing they had the authority to bind the plaintiff to the agreement.
  * The plaintiff did not take any action to disavow the individual’s representations for an extended period.
  * The plaintiff’s website listed the individual as a contact person for business inquiries, implying authority.
  * The plaintiff accepted benefits from the agreement made by the unauthorized individual, suggesting tacit approval.

• Element 2. The plaintiff learned of the party’s (or agent’s) unauthorized conduct, and all of the material facts involved in the unauthorized transaction, after it occurred. The plaintiff found out about the other party’s unauthorized actions and all the important details of the transaction only after it had already happened.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff discovered the unauthorized transaction only after receiving a detailed report from a third party, which outlined the actions taken by the defendant’s agent.
  * The plaintiff was unaware of the agent’s conduct until they were notified by their financial institution about discrepancies in their account.
  * The plaintiff did not learn of the unauthorized actions until they reviewed their records several weeks after the transaction had taken place.
  * The plaintiff was informed of the unauthorized conduct during a meeting with the defendant, where the agent’s actions were first disclosed.
  * The plaintiff’s investigation into the matter revealed the unauthorized transaction occurred without their knowledge or consent, and they were only made aware of it post-factum.

• Element 3. The plaintiff then approved of the agent’s conduct. In simple terms, this means that the person who was wronged (the plaintiff) agreed to or accepted what the agent did, showing that they are okay with the agent’s actions, which can protect the agent from being held responsible for those actions.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff was present during the agent’s actions and did not express any objections at the time.
  * After the agent completed the transaction, the plaintiff acknowledged and accepted the benefits derived from the agent’s conduct.
  * The plaintiff communicated approval of the agent’s actions in writing shortly after the event occurred.
  * The plaintiff continued to work with the agent and did not terminate their relationship despite being aware of the agent’s conduct.
  * The plaintiff publicly endorsed the agent’s actions in a meeting with stakeholders, indicating satisfaction with the agent’s decisions.

^{(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 3710.)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Defense of Ratification, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents that are supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively present your Defense of Ratification.

Prove Your CA Ratification Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only