Is it a condition to verbally utter the authorization for the agency in a marriage contract to be valid, especially if the custom is for the father or his representative to undertake the contract without explicit authorization from the husband?

"Authorization is the permission granted by the principal to his agent to act on his behalf. Its form is anything that indicates mutual consent through word or deed, and reference is made to custom in this regard. An agent's authorization of another person is permissible if the principal explicitly allows it or if the agency inherently includes delegation. This is the view of the majority of scholars. If there is no such permission, the contract is considered fudooli (unauthorized by the principal at the time of its conclusion) and becomes valid with the principal's ratification. This is also the view of the majority. Whoever seeks reassurance should renew the contract, conclude it himself, or appoint someone else to conclude it."