If the Company Administrator Can Incur Liability to Third Parties for Legal Documents Concluded in Excess of Statutory Limits of the Mandate? Inapplicability Apparent Mandate Theory

Abstract

In preparing this study, the starting point was the motivation of a solution of the present case, the court apparently based on the theory of fate mandate acts concluded by the company manager to overcome the limits of the mandate received. Even if, hypothetically, the court would say that the conclusion goes beyond the mandate granted to the signatory (in this case the legal representative of a limited liability company), contracts with third parties in good faith are valid, and therefore the principal binding as one that is guilty of his powers entrusted to a person who has abused him. In the third, since they knew the cause of termination of office, I have no guilt and can not be harmed their interests fault in others. From this perspective the fate of acts done in excess of received power falls within the mandate theory apparently apparent application of the theory of law which is based on the idea that if a third party under an erroneous belief, providing a measure of a person who had right or power to meet appearance thus created allows the recognition of the validity and enforceability act. Relative to the provisions of the New Civil Code and Article 55 (2) of the Companies Act, we ask that the mandate theory apparently be justified if the administrator acts concluded in excess of statutory limits mandate third party contractors and distinguishes between good or bad faith, in particular whether currently still can speak of civil legal liability, personal (direct) manager of the company to third parties contractors bad faith.