AgencyDPFebruary32014

Art 1899 if agent followed instructions principal

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: rs. It distinguished between the 1985 contracts, where Safic likewise dealt with Dominador Monteverde, who was presumably authorized to bind IVO, and the 1986 contracts, which were highly speculative in character. Moreover, the 1985 contracts were covered by letters of credit, while the 1986 contracts were payable by telegraphic transfers, which were nothing more than mere promises to pay once the shipments became ready. For these reasons, the lower court held that Safic cannot invoke the 1985 contracts as an implied corporate sanction for the high­risk 1986 contracts, which were evidently entered into by Monteverde for his personal benefit. TC: Safic failed to substantiate its claim for actual damages. Likewise, it rejected IVO’s counterclaim and supplemental counterclaim ● Both IVO and Safic appealed to the Court of Appeals. Issue: Whether or not Monteverde exceeded his scope of authority as an agent in entering into the 1986 contracts. Held: ● ● ● Yes. It was proven by IVO, when they presented a copy of their by­laws, that Monteverde acted beyond his authority when he entered into speculative contracts with Safic in 1986. The 1986 contracts are speculative because at the time of the contracts, the coconuts are not even growing at that time and are yet to be harvested. Hence, the 1986 contracts are sales of mere expectations – and this is something prohibited by the by­laws and the Board of Directors of IVO. Under Article 189812 of the Civil Code, the acts of an agent beyond the scope of his authority do not bind the principal unless the latter ratifies the same expressly or impliedly. It also bears emphasizing that when the third person knows that the agent was acting beyond his power or authority, the principal cannot be held liable for the acts of the agent. If the said third person is aware of such limits of authority, he is to blame, and is not entitled to recover damages from the agent, unless the latter undertook to secure the principal’s ratification.13 There can be no implied agency too simply because there has been a...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online