Diplock LJ’s classic statement (in Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Part Properties (Mangal) Ltd) regarding the requirements for establishing ostensible authority, in particular the requirements regarding the making of the representation, can prove problematic for a third party seeking to establish ostensible authority. This calls for a doctrinal re-calibration of those requirements to better reflect sound considerations of commercial utility.

Do you agree with this statement, and if so, why; and if not, why not?Diplock LJ’s classic statement (in Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Part Properties (Mangal) Ltd) regarding the requirements for establishing ostensible authority, in particular the requirements regarding the making of the representation, can prove problematic for a third party seeking to establish ostensible authority. This calls for a doctrinal re-calibration of those requirements to better reflect sound considerations of commercial utility.

Do you agree with this statement, and if so, why; and if not, why not?