ТЕОРИИ ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬСТВА ПРЕДСТАВИТЕЛЯ БЕЗ ПОЛНОМОЧИЯ ПЕРЕД ТРЕТЬИМ ЛИЦОМ: ОПЫТ ГЕРМАНСКОЙ ЦИВИЛИСТИКИ И ЕГО ИСПОЛЬЗОВАНИЕ В РОССИИ

Abstract

The purpose of the study is to determine the basis of the occurrence and the legal nature of the obligation of a representative without authority in case of refusal to approve the contract conducted by him. To achieve this purpose, the author turns to the history of para. 1 p. 1 and p. 3 of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and identifies the theoretical model that underlies these prescriptions. The legal regulation of the obligation of the representative was borrowed by the domestic legislator from the draft and the final text of the German BGB. The prescriptions for this undertaking were formed as a result of a heated debate that unfolded in the second half of the 19th century among German civil law experts. They developed the basic theories of an obligation of a representative without authority: a theory of tort liability, a theory of obligation from a guarantee agreement, a theory of pre-contractual liability and a theory of obligation to protect trust. The last theory turned out to be the most viable and was enshrined in the final version of § 179 BGB, and therefore in the paragraphs of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The essence of this theory is that if a representative without authority concludes a contract on behalf of the principal who then refuses to approve, then a representative has an obligation to compensate a third party (counterparty) for property damage; this obligation follows from the prescription of the law and the trust of a third party in the existence of authority that the representative shows, regardless of the representative’s fault. The obligation of the representative without authority is not a tort liability or obligation from the guarantee agreement; this obligation is precontractual in nature, however, it cannot be considered as liability for unfair negotiation, as it arises without the fault of the representative. The theory of obligation to protect trust has not been well covered in Russian literature. The few domestic authors who answer the question about the basis of the occurrence and the legal nature of the obligation of a representative are supporters of the theory of tort liability, the theory of obligation from a guarantee agreement or the theory of pre-contractual liability.