Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties illustrates the principle that

O the company could deny that the director had the authority to act

for the company

O directors, as a general rule, do not have the authority to bind the

company

the third party knew that the director was not authorised to act and therefore could not claim against the company

O the board of directors had represented that the director was authorised to act for the company since they knew about the director's conduct and had agreed with it.

Freeman \& Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties illustrates the principle that the company could deny that the director had the authority to act for the company directors, as a general rule, do not have the authority to bind the company the third party knew that the director was not authorised to act and therefore could not claim against the company the board of directors had represented that the director was authorised to act for the company since they knew about the director's conduct and had agreed with it