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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more