(iii) Ratification of the Defendant’s Wrongdoing
The only true case of waiver of tort occurs where the claimant has actually ratified the defendant’s wrongdoing.[1] This notion of waiver of tort will only be applicable where the defendant purported to act as the claimant’s agent but lacked the authority to do so. For example, if the defendant sold the claimant’s car, purporting to act as the claimant’s agent but without authority to do so, there are two options available to the claimant. The claimant could sue the defendant for the tort of conversion and obtain compensatory or restitutionary remedies. Alternatively, the claimant could ratify the sale and so retrospectively authorize the defendant’s actions. Consequently, the defendant would be subject to the usual obligations of an agent, including the obligation to account to the claimant for the purchase price which had been received from the purchaser. Since the effect of the ratification by the claimant is to extinguish the tort,[2] it follows that, once the claimant has ratified the wrong, he or she is unable to sue the defendant on the tort. It is for this reason that such ratification is properly called waiver of tort and the doctrine should properly be confined to this specific context.
