Which type of authority is generally harder to prove?

The type of authority that is generally harder to prove is apparent authority. Apparent authority arises when a third party is led to believe that an agent has authority to act on behalf of the principal, even if the agent does not have actual authority (either express or implied).

In scenarios involving apparent authority, the focus is on the perceptions of the third party rather than the intentions or communications of the principal. Since it is based on the impressions created by the principal's representations, proving that such authority existed can be difficult. The principal must have acted in a way that reasonably led the third party to believe that the agent had the authority to make decisions or take actions on their behalf.

This contrasts with express actual authority, which is clearly defined and documented by the principal's explicit instructions. Implied actual authority, while sometimes subjective, is still derived from the context of the relationship and the actions taken by the principal. Limited authority pertains to the specific scope of authority granted to the agent but can often be substantiated through documentation or contract stipulations.

Hence, proving apparent authority often requires demonstrating the perceptions of the third party and the context in which those perceptions were formed, making it more challenging than demonstrating the existence of express or implied authority.