- 25 -
Co., 140 Ill. App. 3d 874, 883 (1st Dist. 1985), or fails to
repudiate the agent’s acts, see Chalet Ford, Inc. v. Red Top
Parking, Inc., 62 Ill. App. 3d 270 (1st Dist. 1978), or retains
the benefits of the unauthorized transaction, see Stathis v.
Geldermann, Inc., 295 Ill. App. 3d 844, 858 (1998); George F.
Mueller & Sons, Inc. v. Northern Ill. Gas Co., 12 Ill. App.3d 362
(1st Dist. 1973). In contrast, ratification will not be implied
from acts or conduct that clearly evidences an intent not to
ratify. See Evanston Bank v. Conticommodity Servs., Inc., 623 F.
Supp. 1014, 1037 (N.D. Ill. 1985).
Our analysis continues with the specific circumstances that
support our conclusion that petitioner ratified the filing of the
petition by Jaffe on its behalf.
Although not familiar with tax procedure, James and John
were aware, or should have been aware, that petitioner’s case was
before the Tax Court. Evidence of this is found from various
events that occurred after the filing of the petition.
First, the Designation of Place of Trial (DPT) was mailed to
petitioner at its Highland Park office by the Court. More
importantly, James admitted that he signed and dated the DPT.
James testified that he did not review the DPT before
signing it, but that if he had noticed it was a Tax Court
document, he would have questioned Jaffe about it. We do not
find this testimony particularly convincing, however, given the
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011