Ratification of false representation (confirmation) and consequences of it!

 

We are talking about ratification when the actions of a person without representative authority are subsequently confirmed by the person for whom he is supposed to act and with retroactive effect. While a burglary in a derelict transaction is a will of the actual rightful person, where a person acted in his own name and in his own interest, but presenting a foreign thing for his own.

The consequence of ratification is that it will make the deal signed without a power of attorney valid. While there is another hypothesis at the time of approval (approval), one person acts on its own behalf, representing, for example, as the owner of a foreign object. This devastated transaction will give rise to legal action if the real owner of the property gives its approval for it. Here, this approval will be ex tunc, preserving as the parties to the deal the one who has imagined the owner of the thing and the third person. While ratification is a one-sided statement of the repre- sented representative, it confirms the legal actions taken by the reprehensible representative.

The main issue here is whether ratification creates yet representative power or such representative power is not created. Prof. Pavlova argues that such representative power does not arise. But confirmation as a one-sided deal means that no counter-statement is expected from either the reputable agent or the third person.

The CPA says that any legal action can be confirmed, including those that do not have the qualities of contracts. It is not, however, admissible to confirm only a part of the legal actions taken without a power of attorney - they must either be fully confirmed or their ratification be refused.

 

Form and effect of the ratification (confirmation)

 

The CPA expressly states that the confirmation must be done in the same form as the form of the authorization to conclude the contract, this is the legal form required under which the confirmation can be made.

Ratification acts retroactively, but 42 says nothing about the effect of verification. Here and without explicit provision of the law, the effect of ratification is ex tunc, since confirmation is a conditional will, it does not enter into the content of the agreement between the reputable representative and the third person. Through ratification, the alleged representative simply assumes that the actions taken by the reputable representative will occur in his legal sphere.

 Term for ratification

 

When the deputy is silent, this creates a certain uncertainty that could be avoided in the following way:

1. It was when the repre- sentative requested, within a specified period, that the repre- sented representative would confirm or not the transaction.

2. It was when the third party stated that he no longer had any legal interest.

301 However, the CC gives another authorization for the period within which ratification must take place - when a person acts objectionably on behalf of a trader, it is assumed that the trader has accepted the action if he does not resist immediately after the acquaintance. Here the silence as an exception is assimilated to consent. There are also no deadlines given by the third party to approve the deal.

If the legal representative's legal actions are not confirmed (under 42 LCP / 301 CA), then the deal will be null and void in the relationship between the repre- sentative and the third party. If the legal action is confirmed / there is silence, the legal consequences retroactively bind the patrimony of the pseudo-represented.

Legal effects between the repre- sentative and the third person - here the deal will also have no effect, as the repre- sentative acts by a foreign name and hence with representative authority, and without it, no representative power between them.

It is possible, however, when it becomes apparent that the pending member will not confirm the incumbent's representative to accept the legal consequences for him. Here, the third party will not have the right to seek redress even if it is in good faith.

If a ratification by a pseudonym is not followed, and the prudent representative also does not want the legal consequences to occur for it, the third party may only seek negative harm from the counterparty. The responsibility is for a preliminary contract and this non-blocking of the transaction will nevertheless cause any damages to the third party (at least the costs of the expected contract). It is only the bona fide third party that is entitled to claim compensation for negative damage.

There is one difference here - while in the face of contractual liability, the person accountable must be guilty; here, in the case of a pseudo representation, the falsus procurator must not have acted guiltily.

The legal consequences between the falsely represented and the reputable representative - the legal consequences between the two will be different, depending on whether or not there is a ratification.

If there is confirmation, then the relationship between the reputable representative and the pending representations will be as, for example, one by one