Definition
Revocation of agency is the unilateral act by which a principal terminates the authority previously granted to an agent, ending the agent's legal power to act on the principal's behalf. It is one of several modes by which an agency relationship comes to an end, and it is distinctive in that it originates with the principal rather than the agent (renunciation) or by operation of law.
Revocation may be express or implied. An express revocation occurs when the principal directly communicates to the agent — or to relevant third parties — that the agency is terminated. An implied revocation occurs when the principal takes action inconsistent with the continuation of the agency, such as appointing a new agent to perform the same task or personally assuming the functions previously delegated.
Revocation is effective as between principal and agent upon communication to the agent. However, it does not protect the principal against liability to third parties who dealt with the agent without notice of the revocation. Until actual or constructive notice is given to third parties, an agent retains apparent authority, and the principal may remain bound by the agent's acts.
A critical limitation: revocation is not always legally permissible without consequence. Where the agency is coupled with an interest — meaning the agent holds an interest in the subject matter of the agency itself, not merely an expectation of compensation — the principal cannot revoke unilaterally without incurring liability. Such an agency is said to be irrevocable.
---
Common Confusion
REVOCATION vs. RENUNCIATION: These terms are often used loosely as interchangeable, but they describe opposite movements. Revocation is the principal's act of terminating the agency. Renunciation is the agent's act of withdrawing from the relationship. The distinction matters in research because historical sources sometimes use "revocation" broadly to cover both, and the party who initiates termination determines questions of breach and liability.
REVOCATION vs. TERMINATION BY OPERATION OF LAW: Revocation is a volitional act. Agency also terminates automatically — without any act by either party — upon death, insanity, or bankruptcy of the principal or agent, or upon completion of the agency's purpose. These are not revocations. Conflating them distorts analysis of notice requirements and third-party liability.
---
Core Elements
For a revocation to be legally effective, the following conditions bear on its scope and validity:
1. CAPACITY OF PRINCIPAL: The principal must have legal capacity at the time of revocation. A principal who has become legally incapacitated cannot effectively revoke, and in many jurisdictions the incapacity itself terminates the agency by operation of law.
2. COMMUNICATION: Revocation between principal and agent requires actual notice to the agent. Revocation as against third parties requires actual notice to those who have dealt with the agent directly, and constructive notice (such as publication) to the general public who may have known of the agency.
3. ABSENCE OF COUPLED INTEREST: Revocation is freely available only where the agency is a pure agency. Where the agent holds an interest in the agency's subject matter, the principal's power to revoke is curtailed and revocation before completion may constitute a breach entitling the agent to damages.
4. TIMING AND PENDING TRANSACTIONS: Even a valid revocation does not automatically unwind transactions the agent completed before receiving notice of revocation. Acts within the agent's actual or apparent authority, completed prior to effective notice, bind the principal.
---
Why It Matters in Research
The notice problem is the central research trap. Historical sources and older treatises often discuss revocation as if communication to the agent is sufficient to terminate the agency entirely. It is not — apparent authority survives revocation until third parties receive notice, and liability exposure turns on what notice was given and when. Researchers reading older cases must be alert to whether the court is analyzing revocation as between principal and agent, or as against third parties; the rules differ, and conflation produces misreadings.
The agency coupled with an interest doctrine has shifted over time. Courts and commentators historically disagreed on whether an agent's expectation of commission was sufficient to create an irrevocable agency (it is not, under the dominant modern view) versus a genuine property interest in the subject matter (which does). Older dictionaries and treatises sometimes blur this distinction. Researchers should verify which formulation a historical source is applying before relying on it.
The relationship between revocation and implied revocation is underdeveloped in most historical sources. Implied revocation — through inconsistent conduct by the principal — creates particular complexity when the agent has already entered third-party transactions in reliance on ostensible continuing authority. This is an area where the encyclopedia entry on ratification and estoppel becomes relevant, since estoppel may effectively prevent the principal from asserting revocation.
Corpus connections: researchers working on probation revocation will find this entry inapplicable; the criminal law sense of "revocation" is a procedural and constitutional concept entirely separate from agency doctrine. See the Criminal Law Encyclopedia for that treatment.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Rapalje & Lawrence define revocation of agency as "the recall of the powers of an agent by the principal," and note that it may be express or implied, and that a general agent's authority may be revoked as to third parties only upon their receiving actual notice where they have dealt with the agent, or constructive notice by publication where the agency was publicly known. The entry correctly identifies the agency coupled with an interest as the primary exception to the principal's unilateral power to revoke.
What Rapalje & Lawrence treats thoroughly is the notice framework — a strength of the late nineteenth-century treatment, reflecting the commercial importance of protecting third parties who relied on agents in trade. What the source does not fully develop is the modern analytical distinction between the power to revoke (which a principal generally always has) and the right to revoke (which may be limited by contract, so that revocation is effective but wrongful, entitling the agent to damages). This power/right distinction, now standard in agency law scholarship, is largely absent from historical dictionary treatments and should not be read backward into older sources.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The basic framework of revocation — freely exercisable by the principal, subject to notice requirements for third parties, curtailed by coupled interest — is consistent across common law jurisdictions. Statutory modifications, particularly in the context of powers of attorney (including durable powers of attorney), vary significantly by state and have introduced specific notice, recording, and form requirements that overlay and sometimes displace common law revocation rules.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
Agency — Termination of Agency Relationships (The Law Mind Business Organizations & Corporate Law Encyclopedia)
Agency — Ratification and Estoppel in Agency (The Law Mind Business Organizations & Corporate Law Encyclopedia)
---