Company had two directors, X and Y. Was agreed that X would take over financial side of business, and Y the day-to-day operations of business. However from time to time, and with consent of Y, X would forge Y’s signatures on certain financial documents. One such document was sought to be upheld against company, and Y challenged this on grounds that he had not put his signature to it. Held:
· Rule in Great Fingalldoes not apply where agent who made forged documents acted with ostensible authority.
· Where this is case, s.44(5) acts to make contract binding on company.
· Additionally, is ‘much force’ in view that s.44(5) has displaced rule in Great Fingall.
