Is a principal bound by a contract if the agent has exceeded his authority?

LTŠio straipsnio tikslas yra išanalizuoti atstovaujamojo sutartinę atsakomybę trečiajai šaliai, kai atstovas, veikdamas atstovaujamojo vardu ('už atstovaujamąjį'), sudaro sutartį viršydamas jam suteiktas teises. Čia keliama hipotezė, kad atstovaujamajam nėra privaloma sutartis, kuri sudaryta atstovui viršijant jam suteiktas teises, nebent atstovaujamasis patvirtina tokią sutartį. Siekiant pagrįsti iškeltą hipotezę, straipsyje yra lyginamos Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų, Didžiosios Britanijos bei Lietuvos teisės normos bei teisminė praktika. Straipsyje analizuojama: 1. Atstovui atstovaujamojo duodami įgaliojimai, jų rūšys (authority), kurie suteikia teisę atstovui atstovaujamojo vardu sudaryti sutartis bei atlikti kitus teisinius veiksmus. 2. Atstovaujamojo sutartinė atsakomybė trečiajai šaliai, kai atstovas, veikdamas atstovaujamojo vardu ('už atstovaujamąjį') sudaro sutartį viršydamas jam suteiktus įgaliojimus. 3. Sutarties, kuri buvo sudaryta atstovui viršijant jam suteiktas teises, patvirtinimo (ratifikavimo) sąlygos bei teisinės pasekmės. Straipsnis neanalizuoja specialių teisės normų, reglamentuojančių atstovavimo teisinių santykių ypatumus partnerystėje, juridinių asmenų atstovavimo specialiųjų teisės normų bei prokūros.

ENThe purpose of this article was to analyze the contractual liability of the principal to the third party when the agent, who acts on behalf of (in the name of) the principal, exceeds his authority in making a contract with the third party. The hypothesis stated that: the principal is not bound by the contract entered on his behalf, if the agent exceeds the scope of authority, unless the principal ratifies the contract. The hypothesis is proved. Analytical, systematic and comparative analysis of the laws and legal principles governing agency in the United States, the United Kingdom and Lithuania enable to provide the following conclusions: 1) Common law countries acknowledge the general rule that the principal is bound by the contract formed on behalf of the principal by his agent only if the agent is authorized to enter into the contract for the principal. Under the Lithuanian law, the general rule is that the agent is empowered to bind the principal by the contract (i.e. to establish, alter or abolish the civil rights and obligations of the principal) only if the agent acts within the scope of his authority and discloses the fact of agency. Thus, under the Lithuanian law the agent has to meet both requirements to bind the principal by the contract. In this respect common law rules differ, as the common law rules do not impose the requirement always to disclose the principal. 2) Common law rules as well as the Lithuanian Civil Code rely on the principle that the contract entered on behalf of the principal by the agent in excess of the granted authority (actual or apparent) does not create legal consequences to the principal. Although special attention should be drawn to the contractual liability of the principal for the unauthorized acts of the special and general agents as the United States law provide broader powers to the general agents to bind the principal by the contract.3) The United States law, the English law and the Lithuanian law allow the principal to ratify the unauthorized contract provided that the principal complies with the imposed requirements of ratification. Valid ratification acts retrospectively: it relates to that point of time when the agent originally formed the unauthorized contract on behalf of the principal. Ratification releases the agent from liability to both the principal and the third party as the principal becomes bound by the unauthorized contract and assumes all rights and obligations associated with it. 4) The major difference between the provisions and the legal principles concerning ratification in common law countries and the Lithuanian law is that the Lithuanian Civil Code tends to strictly determine the procedural requirements of ratification whereas it fails to directly provide the general principles that would make ratification valid or would imperatively preclude the principal from ratification. Certain ambiguities still cannot be resolved as there is no case law concerning different issues of ratification under the new provisions of the Civil Code.