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

The recent Order No. 9679 of April 10, 2024, issued by the Court of Cassation, offers 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 parties acting in good faith and the actions they can take in the event of an ineffective contract.

Regulatory Context and the Judgment

The main issue addressed by the Court concerns Article 1398 of the Civil Code, which governs the action available to a party who has relied on the effectiveness of a contract entered into by a representative without powers. According to the Court, the party acting in good faith may claim compensation for damages suffered due to the ineffectiveness of the contract, without this precluding any action for the recovery of assets or sums acquired without legal title.

(REPRESENTATION WITHOUT POWERS) - DAMAGES COMPENSATION Action by the party in good faith - Action by the same party for the recovery of assets or sums acquired under the ineffective agreement - Compatibility. The action available, pursuant to art. 1398 of the Civil Code, to the party who has relied without fault on the effectiveness of the contract, against the representative without powers of the counterparty, in order to be compensated for the damages suffered (expenses incurred, expenditure of activity, loss of other business, etc.), does not coincide with that which may be brought by the same party, regardless of their psychological attitude in the conclusion of the contract, for the recovery of assets or sums that the falsus procurator or others have acquired without title, under the ineffective agreement; it follows that the exercise of one of these actions does not hinder the bringing of the other.

Practical Implications of the Judgment

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

• Rights of Parties in Good Faith: Parties acting in good faith can effectively protect themselves by claiming compensation for damages suffered and, at the same time, taking action to recover sums or assets.
• Distinction of Actions: It is crucial to understand that the action for damages compensation does not exclude the possibility of claiming the restitution of what has been unduly acquired, thus ensuring broader protection for the interests of the party.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Order No. 9679 of 2024 represents an important reference point in the matter of representation without powers. It reiterates the principle of protection for parties acting in good faith, allowing them to act both for damages compensation and for the recovery of assets or sums, without one action prejudicing the other. This judgment, therefore, not only clarifies the legal position of the parties but also contributes to strengthening legal certainty in contractual matters.