Commentary on Judgment No. 9679 of 2024: Representation Without Powers and Compensation for Damages

The recent Order No. 9679 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, provides an important opportunity for reflection on the figure of the representative without powers and the legal consequences that arise from it. In particular, the decision clarifies the rights of contracting parties in good faith and the actions they can take in the event of an ineffective contract.

The Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The main issue addressed by the Court concerns Article 1398 of the Civil Code, which governs the action that can be taken by the contracting party who relied on the effectiveness of a contract executed by a representative lacking powers. According to the Court, the contracting party in good faith can claim compensation for damages suffered due to the ineffectiveness of the contract, without this precluding the possible action for the restitution of goods or sums acquired without title.

(REPRESENTATION WITHOUT POWERS) - COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES Action by the contracting party in good faith - Action by the same for the recovery of goods or sums acquired under the ineffective transaction - Compatibility. The action that can be taken, pursuant to Article 1398 of the Civil Code, by the contracting party who relied without fault on the effectiveness of the contract, against the representative without powers of the other party, in order to be compensated for the damage suffered (expenses incurred, expenditure of activity, loss of other business, etc.), does not coincide with that which may potentially be proposed by the same, regardless of their psychological attitude in concluding the contract, for the recovery of goods or sums that the falsus procurator or others have acquired without title, based on the ineffective transaction; it follows that the pursuit of one of these actions does not hinder the proposition of the other.

The Practical Implications of the Judgment

This judgment has significant practical implications for contracting parties operating in representation contexts. In particular, two key aspects are highlighted:

  • Rights of Contracting Parties in Good Faith: Contracting parties acting in good faith can effectively protect themselves by claiming compensation for damages suffered and simultaneously undertake actions for the recovery of sums or goods.
  • Distinction of Actions: It is essential to understand that the action for compensation for damages does not exclude the possibility of requesting the restitution of what has been improperly acquired, thus providing broader protection for the interests of the contracting party.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 9679 of 2024 represents an important reference point in the area of representation without powers. It reaffirms the principle of protecting the contracting party in good faith, allowing for actions both for compensation for damages and for the recovery of goods or sums, without one of the actions prejudicing the other. This judgment, therefore, not only clarifies the legal position of contracting parties but also contributes to strengthening legal certainty in contractual matters.

Bianucci Law Firm