Action by a foreign name without representative authority - consequences.

 

In the case of a foreign name without representative power, there is one person who acts without a representative power as a falsus procurator, another person who is also a representative and a third person with whom the representative represents a legal transaction or acts.

The hypotheses under which there is a dummy representation are different:

1. When there was no representative authority at all.

2. When there was representative power, but it was dropped with ex nunc action, i. the representative power is withdrawn.

3. At the age of one, the person (18 years old), who no longer need to be represented, is fully capable of being.

4. When the power of authority has dropped ex nunc due to the destruction of the transaction.

5. Representative power is also absent when the deputy representative is represented as a representative without any representative power between himself and the representative.

6. A representative office is also present when the representative has exceeded the limits of the representative authority.

It has to be said that imputed representation differs from unilateral signing - while the last one person enters into a legal transaction on its own behalf and on its own account, but in the acquisition document the name of another person is entered, assuming that the person entered in the acquiring document will approve the concluded transaction, there is the conclusion of a transaction / legal action by one representative in the name and for the account (in the interest) of the represented representative.

Mandatory representation also differs from keeping someone else's work unattended.

 

 Consequences of imputed representation

 

In order to clarify the implications of representative power, it is necessary to examine the legal relationships that arise with it:

1. The deal in the relationship between the pimp represented and the third party - if it had a truly representative power, by virtue of it, the legal consequences of the relations between the representative and the third party would have to impose / confer rights on the representation. But here, due to the lack of a valid representative power of the representative, legal consequences for representations will not occur.

According to some authors, this is a negligible deal, and only (as an exception) it is possible, as a result of confirmation, to redeem it. According to other civilians, the deal has not been concluded at all, it is unstable because there is no simple will statement, and there is also no country (represented).

Normally, however, the explanation of the legal consequences of such a deal is given with pending denial of transactions - the transaction concluded by a repre- sentative representative is such that the transaction could either become totally null or could become fully valid. Moreover - this hypothesis can not be misleading under 26, para. 2 of the CPA, because in the case of transactions with unfinished factual composition, whose nullity is settled there, it is a voiced statement, affected by a defect, while there is no will at all here. For transactions with incomplete factual composition, it is possible to add ex-nunc to the ex-declaration, while ratification has an ex tunc effect here. It follows that the will of a deal of a foreign name without representative authority is not vitiated, a voicemail is absent. Ie. this is a pending state, thus opposing this conception (though an exception to the principle) that insignificant transactions can be rehabilitated.

However, there shall be no pending denial of termination of the power of attorney when the termination of the power of attorney can not be relied upon by the third party in good faith (Article 41 (2) of the CPA); in this case, the pending party will be forced to accept the legal consequences of such a deal.