Termination of the agency according to the law and the rulings of the Court of Cassation

The article 714 of the Civil Code No. 131 of the year 1948, which discussed agency, addressed the issue of "termination of the agency." In this context, we will review the article and some rulings of the Court of Cassation commenting on it.

the material 714

The agency ends with the completion of the assigned work or upon the expiration of the specified term of the agency, and it also ends with the death of the principal or the agent.

Rulings of the Court of Cassation

Agency, its termination, the court of the subject matter, its extraction for valid reasons of the agent's failure to perform the assigned work and the conclusion of his mission, substantive, Article 714 Civil.

(Appeal No. 255 of the year 22 Q – Session 5/4/1956 – S7 J 2 p. 489)

The effects of the agency contract do not transfer to the heirs of the principal or the agent after their death; the legislator assumed that the intention of the contracting parties is to terminate the agency contract upon the death of either party.

(Appeal No. 106 of the 33rd year – Session 13/2/1968 – Volume 19, Part 1, Page 254)

The effects of the agency contract do not transfer after the death of the principal or the agent to their heirs as general successors. The reason for this is... (Article 714 of the Civil Code) An example regarding the endorsement of a power of attorney for a permission bond.

(Appeal No. 2044 of the 52nd year – Session 27/2/1989 – Volume 40, Part 1, Page 666)

The ruling of the contested judgment to annul the first-instance ruling that affirmed the validity and enforceability of the sale contract in question is based on a declaration from the fourth respondent that he signed the contract in his capacity as an agent for the first respondent after the cancellation of his power of attorney, despite the evidence of a memorandum submitted by the first respondent before the first-instance court indicating that the sale before the second-instance court occurred prior to the cancellation of the power of attorney and in the presence of his two witnesses, and his reaffirmation of this during the interrogation ruling, supported by the statements of the contract witnesses in the investigation conducted by the same court. This is in violation of the evidence in the documents and constitutes a corruption in reasoning and an error..