Intertwined hands symbolizing contract law with scales of justice.

Navigating Third-Party Rights: A Guide to Ratification in International and Iranian Law

Jordan Keane in Law & Justice June 2025 • 4 min read.

"Understanding the complexities of agency, authorization, and third-party protections in contract law."

Agency, at its core, is about entrusting someone to act on your behalf. This delegation of authority can take many forms, from explicit written agreements to implied understandings ratified through actions. The concept of 'authorization by ratification'—where a principal approves actions taken without prior authorization—adds a layer of complexity, particularly when third parties are involved.

Imagine a scenario where an agent, acting on behalf of a principal, enters into a contract with a third party but lacks the explicit authority to do so. The principal can later 'ratify' or approve this contract, making it legally binding. However, this process raises critical questions about the rights of the third party, who may have entered the agreement based on incomplete or inaccurate information. Do they have any recourse if the principal's ratification alters the terms or disadvantages them?

This article delves into these complex issues, examining how international legal instruments and Iranian law address the rights of third parties in situations involving authorization by ratification. We'll explore the extent to which a principal can ratify actions, what limitations exist to protect third parties, and how these legal frameworks strike a balance between the rights and obligations of all parties involved.

What is Ratification and Why Does it Matter in Contract Law?

Intertwined hands symbolizing contract law with scales of justice.

Ratification, in legal terms, is the act of approving or confirming a previous action, essentially giving it retroactive validity. In the context of agency law, it refers to a principal's approval of an agent's unauthorized actions. This concept is crucial because it determines the legal standing of contracts and the extent to which parties are bound by agreements.

The challenge arises because ratification involves balancing competing interests. On one hand, the principal has a right to control their affairs and decide whether to be bound by a contract. On the other hand, the third party has a right to rely on the validity of the agreement they entered into and to be protected from potential disadvantages arising from the principal's later actions.

UNIDROIT Principles: These principles expressly allow a principal to ratify unauthorized actions, a position echoed by European principles. This suggests a broad acceptance of the concept of ratification.
Iranian Law: Iranian law also acknowledges this general rule, emphasizing that an agent should not exceed their given authority. However, the law also recognizes instances where a lack of authority doesn't necessarily invalidate an agreement.
The Time Factor: A significant issue is the period during which a principal can ratify an agreement. Delaying ratification can leave the third party in limbo, unsure of their obligations and potentially exposed to market risks.

International legal instruments and Iranian law both recognize the need to limit the ratification right to protect third parties from undue uncertainty. While the specific conditions and reasons may differ, the underlying principle of limitation is consistent.

Striking a Balance: Protecting Third-Party Interests

Ultimately, the legal frameworks surrounding ratification aim to strike a balance between the principal's right to control their affairs and the third party's need for protection and certainty. By understanding the nuances of these regulations, businesses and individuals can navigate contract negotiations with greater confidence and minimize the risk of disputes.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

What exactly is 'ratification' in the context of contract law, and why is it important?

In contract law, 'ratification' refers to the act by which a principal approves or confirms a previously unauthorized action by an agent, essentially giving the action retroactive validity. It's important because it determines whether a principal is legally bound by a contract entered into by an agent without prior authorization. Ratification balances the principal's right to control their affairs and the third party's right to rely on the validity of the agreement.

How do international legal principles, such as the UNIDROIT Principles, address the concept of ratification?

The UNIDROIT Principles expressly allow a principal to ratify unauthorized actions by an agent. This stance, which is also supported by European principles, indicates a broad international acceptance of the ratification concept. These principles, however, also focus on protecting the third party. The critical aspect is the time frame within which ratification can occur, as delays can create uncertainty and potential risks for the third party involved. They do not explicitly cover all aspects of agency law, such as apparent authority or the duties of agents.

How does Iranian law view ratification, and does it differ significantly from international norms?

Iranian law acknowledges the general rule that a principal can ratify an agent's unauthorized actions, while also emphasizing that agents should not exceed their authority. However, Iranian law recognizes instances where the lack of authority does not automatically invalidate an agreement. Similar to international norms, Iranian law recognizes the need to limit the right to ratification in order to protect third parties from undue uncertainty. The specific conditions for and reasons behind the limitations might differ, but the fundamental principle of limitation remains consistent.

What are the potential risks to a third party when a principal delays the ratification of a contract?

A delay in ratification can leave a third party in limbo, uncertain about their obligations and rights. This uncertainty can expose the third party to market risks, as they may be unable to make alternative arrangements or commitments while awaiting the principal's decision. The delay affects their ability to plan and potentially leads to financial disadvantages if the market conditions change unfavorably during the waiting period. This underscores the need for clear legal frameworks that limit the time frame for ratification.

How do legal systems attempt to balance the rights of the principal with the need to protect third parties in ratification scenarios?

Legal systems aim to balance the principal's right to control their affairs with the third party's need for protection and certainty. This balance is achieved by limiting the principal's right to ratify, setting time limits for ratification, and establishing conditions under which ratification is not permissible if it unfairly prejudices the third party. The goal is to prevent the principal from using ratification opportunistically to the detriment of the third party, while still allowing them the flexibility to approve agreements made on their behalf. These protections are essential for maintaining fairness and promoting confidence in contract negotiations.