Section 821 — Ostensible (apparent) agency

Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section

1. Supreme Court Judgment No. 11188/2558 (2015) ★ Landmark

   Apparent agency requires actual reliance by a good-faith third party who genuinely believed the agent was acting for the disclosed principal.

   Apparent agency under Section 821 requires not only that the alleged principal hold out the agent, but also that the third party must in fact have been misled into believing they were dealing with the principal. If the third party knew the true situation, Section 821 does not apply.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

2. Supreme Court Judgment No. 5683/2552 (2009)

   Repeated acquiescence in another person's acts as if they were the agent constitutes a holding-out that binds the alleged principal under Section 821.

   Where the defendant allowed a co-defendant to conduct purchases of fertiliser in the defendant's name on five prior occasions without objection, the defendant was found to have held out the co-defendant as apparent agent; the defendant was therefore bound by the co-defendant's sixth purchase.

   Read the full decision (deka.in.th)

Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.