Final answer:
Determining whether it was reasonable for the Merifon representative to assume Mr. X had authority involves analyzing agency law principles. apparent or ostensible authority can inform such assumptions, but specific case details are crucial for a definitive conclusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
In the case of Merifon (Pty) Limited v Greater Letaba Municipality and Another, the question at hand is whether it was reasonable for the representative of Merifon to assume that Mr. X, a director of the Greater Letaba Municipality, had the authority to conclude the sale of property transaction. Drawing on principles of agency law, this typically involves understanding whether the representative had reasonable grounds to believe Mr. X was authorized based on his position, representations made by the municipality, or common practice in such transactions.
Agency law principles dictate that a third party can assume authority based on the agent's apparent authority, which is the authority the agent is held out by the principal to have, or their ostensible authority, which is the authority a reasonable person would assume they have based on the principal's representations. Not having access to the specific details of the case, we can refer to general legal principles and related historical cases that touch upon issues of authority, representation, and reliability of the parties involved, such as the case of Buchanan v. Warley on property rights, the defense right to counsel established in the Scottsboro case, and the consideration of character in the judgment process as portrayed in Marcus Cato's counsel.