Proper law
The proper law of the contract is the main system of law applied to decide the validity of most aspects to the contract including its formation, validity, interpretation, and performance. This does not deny the power of the parties to agree that different aspects of the contract shall be governed by different systems of law. But, in the absence of such express terms, the court will not divide the proper law unless there are unusually compelling circumstances. And note the general rule of the lex fori which applies the provisions of the proper law as it is when the contract is to be performed and not as it was when the contract was made.
The parties to a valid contract are bound to do what they have promised. So, to be consistent, the Doctrine of Proper Law examines the parties' intention as to which law is to govern the contract. The claimed advantage of this approach is that it satisfies more abstract considerations of justice if the parties are bound by the law they have chosen. But it raises the question of whether the test is to be subjective, i.e. the law actually intended by the parties, or objective, i.e. the law will impute the intention which reasonable men in their position would probably have had. It cannot safely be assumed that the parties did actually consider which of the several possible laws might be applied when they were negotiating the contract. Hence, although the courts would prefer the subjective approach because this gives effect the parties' own wishes, the objective test has gained in importance. So the proper law test today is three-stage:
-
it is the law intended by the parties when the contract was made which is usually evidenced by an express choice of law clause; or
-
it is implied by the court because either the parties incorporated actual legal terminology or provisions specific to one legal system, or because the contract would only be valid under one of the potentially relevant systems; or
-
if there is no express or implied choice, it is the law which has the closest and most real connection to the bargain made by the parties.
It is only fair to admit that the task of imputing an intention to the parties in the third situation presents the courts with another opportunity for uncertainty and arbitrariness, but this overall approach is nevertheless felt to be the lesser of the available evils.
Express selection
When the parties express a clear intention in a formal clause, there is a rebuttable presumption that this is the proper law because it reflects the parties' freedom of contract and it produces certainty of outcome. It can only be rebutted when the choice is not bona fide, it produces illegality, or it breaches public policy. For example, the parties may have selected the particular law to evade the operation of otherwise mandatory provisions of the law which has the closest connection with the contract. The parties are not free to put themselves above the law and, in such cases, it will be for the parties to prove that there is a valid reason for selecting that law other than evasion.
Implied selection
When the parties have not used express words, their intention may be inferred from the terms and nature of the contract, and from the general circumstances of the case. For example, a term granting the courts of a particular state exclusive jurisdiction over the contract would imply that the lex fori is to be the proper law (see forum selection clause).
Closest and most real connection
In default, the court has to impute an intention by asking, as just and reasonable persons, which law the parties ought to, or would, have intended to nominate if they had thought about it when they were making the contract. In arriving at its decision, the court uses a list of connecting factors, i.e. facts which have an unambiguous geographical connection, and whichever law scores the most hits on a league table created from the list will be considered the proper law. The current list of factors includes the following:
-
the habitual residence/domicile/nationality of the parties;
-
the parties' main places of business and of incorporation;
-
the place nominated for any arbitration proceedings in the event of a dispute (the lex loci arbitri);
-
the language in which the contract documents is written;
-
the format of the documents, e.g. if a form is only found in one relevant country, this suggests that the parties intended the law of that country to be the proper law;
-
the currency in which any payment is to be made;
-
the flag of any ship involved;
-
the place where the contract is made (which may not be obvious where negotiations were concluded by letter, fax or e-mail);
-
the place(s) where performance is to occur;
-
any pattern of dealing established in previous transactions involving the same parties; and
-
where any insurance companies or relevant third parties are located.
Dépeçage
Some legal systems provide that a contract may be governed by more than one law. This concept is referred to as dépeçage. Article 3(1) of the Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations expressly recognises dépeçage in contracting states.
Law of agency
The law of agency is an area of commercial law dealing with a set of contractual, quasi-contractual and non-contractual relationships that involve a person, called the agent, that is authorized to act on behalf of another (called the principal) to create a legal relationship with a third party.[1] Succinctly, it may be referred to as the relationship between a principal and an agent whereby the principal, expressly or impliedly, authorizes the agent to work under his control and on his behalf. The agent is, thus, required to negotiate on behalf of the principal or bring him and third parties into contractual relationship. This branch of law separates and regulates the relationships between:
-
Agents and principals;
-
Agents and the third parties with whom they deal on their principals' behalf; and
-
Principals and the third parties when the agents purport to deal on their behalf.
The common law principle in operation is usually represented in the Latin phrase, qui facit per alium, facit per se, i.e. the one who acts through another, acts in his or her own interests and it is a parallel concept to vicarious liability and strict liability in which one person is held liable in criminal law or tort for the acts or omissions of another.
In India, section 182 of the Contract Act 1872 defines Agent as “a person employed to do any act for another or to represent another in dealings with third persons”.[2]
The concepts
The reciprocal rights and liabilities between a principal and an agent reflect commercial and legal realities. A business owner often relies on an employee or another person to conduct a business. In the case of a corporation, since a corporation is a fictitious legal person, it can only act through human agents. The principal is bound by the contract entered into by the agent, so long as the agent performs within the scope of the agency.
A third party may rely in good faith on the representation by a person who identifies himself as an agent for another. It is not always cost effective to check whether someone who is represented as having the authority to act for another actually has such authority. If it is subsequently found that the alleged agent was acting without necessary authority, the agent will generally be held liable.
Brief statement of legal principles
There are three broad classes of agent
-
Universal agents hold broad authority to act on behalf of the principal, e.g. they may hold a power of attorney (also known as a mandate in civil law jurisdictions) or have a professional relationship, say, as lawyer and client.
-
General agents hold a more limited authority to conduct a series of transactions over a continuous period of time; and
-
Special agents are authorized to conduct either only a single transaction or a specified series of transactions over a limited period of time.
Agency relationships
Agency relationships are common in many professional areas.
-
employment.
-
real estate transactions (real estate brokerage, mortgage brokerage). In real estate brokerage, the buyers or sellers are the principals themselves and the broker or his salesperson who represents each principal is his agent.
-
financial advice (insurance agency, stock brokerage, accountancy)
-
contract negotiation and promotion (business management) such as for publishing, fashion model, music, movies, theatre, show business, and sport.
An agent in commercial law (also referred to as a manager) is a person who is authorised to act on behalf of another (called the principal or client) to create a legal relationship with a third party.
Share with your friends: |