Final answer:
The applicable legal principle varies based on the details of Kennie Mae's actions and agreement with Buzz; it could be the law of agency, doctrine of estoppel, or ratification doctrine.
Step-by-step explanation:
The legal principle that applies depends on the specifics of Kennie Mae's actions and agreements with Buzz. However, without additional facts:
- If Kennie Mae unmistakably and knowingly undertook actions on behalf of Buzz and both parties understood that she was acting as his agent, then the law of agency may apply.
- If Kennie Mae acted in a way that led Buzz to reasonably believe she was his agent, and he relied on her actions to his detriment, the doctrine of estoppel might prevent her from denying the agency relationship.
- The term agency after the fact is not commonly used in legal terminology, but if it refers to Kennie Mae assuming responsibilities only after certain events without prior agreement, this might be less about forming an agency relationship and more about actions under an implied contract or new agreement.
- If Kennie Mae's signature on the closing paperwork was an approval of past transactions she made on Buzz's behalf, and she had the authority to approve such transactions, the ratification doctrine could indeed apply, confirming the agency relationship retroactively.
The most accurate answer will depend on the nature of the interactions between Kennie Mae and Buzz, as well as any relevant communications or agreements they may have had regarding the agency relationship.