For the past six years, Mr. Bernardo was employed by Ms. Emma as a manager to run her butchery in Midlands. During his employment, Mr. Bernardo routinely ordered fresh lamb on behalf of Ms. Emma's butchery from William Mackay, a sheep farmer in Mundaring. In January, Mr. Bernardo was made redundant. However, Ms. Emma decided to keep the information about his redundancy private. Despite his redundancy, Mr. Bernardo placed an order with William for five whole lambs valued at $10,000, purportedly on behalf of Ms. Emma's butchery. Mr. Bernardo later absconded with all the meat. When William Mackay sought to claim his $10,000 from Ms. Emma, he was informed that the meat had not been ordered by the butchery and that Ms. Emma would not pay for it, as Mr. Bernardo was an ex-manager at the time of the order and did not have any authority to act on behalf of Ms. Emma and her butchery. Nevertheless, William Mackay insists that Mr. Bernardo still had the authority to act on behalf of Ms. Emma and her butchery, and therefore Ms. Emma should pay the $10,000 owed. Ms. Emma seeks your advice on whether Mr. Bernardo had the authority to bind her to the $10,000 purchase transaction and whether she is liable to pay William Mackay directly. Provide Ms. Emma advice on the matter. IRAC law