Abstract
The author comments on the court decisions in case No. 49-KG20- 26-K6 based on German doctrine and judicial practice and comes to the conclusion: in case of falsification of the pledger’s signature on the disputed «pledge (hypothecation) agreement», the written form is respected; the falsifier acted as a representative without authority; and an authorized representative of the mortgagor approved the «pledge agreement» through the execution of this agreement — disposition transaction that is aimed at creating a right of pledge. The article notes the fallacy of the position of the court of first instance. In the new consideration of the case, the court did not take into account that between the parties there is a relationship of representation without authority and did not apply Art. 183 of the Civil Code.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
