Skip to main content

Unauthorised Representation - Netherlands

For the benefit of the purchase of a property portfolio, A obtained a mortgage loan from a bank of approximately € 3 million. A had to repay this loan at the latest on 14 June 2013.

Subsequently, A identified B as a buyer of the mortgaged properties of A and for this the lawyer of A made all the necessary arrangements with the relevant authorities and the said lawyer committed to B that the sale agreement shall be signed by A on a particular place and time.

Meanwhile, A identified another person who would be paying more and refused to honour the agreement with B with the argument that he had never appointed his lawyer as his power of attorney and the said lawyer had acted without his written authority.

The matter went to Supreme Court which agreed with the Court of appeals and gave stress on the conclusions which can be drawn from the actions of the various parties in the absence of any specific power of attorney.

The court concluded that  the actions of the Lawyer, even in the absence of a power of attorney from A, could be attributed to A. A by his own actions (which includes omissions) had (also) created the appearance of representative authority which was relied upon by B.

It was established that A had not sought contact with B. According to established case law it is also possible without such own actions, that the appearance of representation can be attributed to A, namely when, as in this case, the other party had justifiably relied on facts and circumstances which are at the risk of A and from which, in public opinion, such an appearance of representative authority can be derived. Now it has been ruled that this is the case here, it is no longer relevant whether A, as he asserted, wished to avoid the sale to B and had not intended to issue a power of attorney to the Lawyer.

Here the Lawyer had all the relevant documents for the sale and transfer of the property portfolio available to him, is particularly important. A asserted that those were still in the Lawyer’s possession due to his involvement in proceedings relating to the property portfolio previously conducted by him for A. Even if this is accepted, this does not detract from the fact that this concerns a circumstance which relates to A and could have contributed to the expectation created with B. The defence put forward by A implies after all that the Lawyer had received the relevant documents – being for a different purpose – from him. This circumstance could therefore be taken into consideration in the assessment of the Court of Appeal that A, in his relationship with B, bears the risk of the unauthorised representation.

The Court of Appeal also included in its assessment that B knew that the Lawyer is a lawyer and that he had previously assisted A in proceedings relating to the property portfolio. The Court of Appeal also pointed out that during the personal hearing relating to the relevant contact between the Lawyer and B, the Lawyer declared that “B knew that he acted for A as lawyer”. Partly because it was established that A had agreed that the Lawyer would look for a potential buyer for the property portfolio in his own network, these circumstances can also contribute to the view of the Court of Appeal that the appearance created by the Lawyer must be attributed to A.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more