The rule of right says, ability is the possibility to engage itself, so, I can sign a contract with my name, in my interest.
The power is to engage the responsibility or liability of others. In other hand, the possibility to link or attach another person.
Epic I : A signs with B we can write also A is engaged with B
Epic II : A signs with the name of C with B, B is engaged with C
I Perfect Delegation and unperfect delegation
In Epic one, we see that the contract is perfect, each other of counterparts signs using their name.
In Epic two, the contract is unperfected because A sign with the name of C. This is a tripartite action or contract.
Why we talk about of Perfect Delegation : the perfect delegation is a contract or more specifically, a relation where the comitant entrust the committee to make something to another person the legate. So, A signs with B with the name of C or for the interest of C
We can tell A is engaged with B in profit of C.
In economy, the sell of housing is a tripartite action usually. We have A who signs with B, the banks, in profit of C, the owner of the good or property. You said oh no, you have in fact two contrats between bank, or B, and A , and an other contract between A and C. Yes it's true, but it is the same economic operation, judge decide that, and they link or attach the two contract to make just one.
In France we have minimum an example of Delegation :
But to explain it, we have to talk before of beneficiary (In french ayant droit) and the having cause (In french ayant cause). Especially do not make the mistake that it's the same notion such as in France. Two words, two meanings.
II Beneficiary and having cause definition : and translation of law
Some of people think that the two word have the same meaning, a beneficiary and having cause are the same. No. You will able to understand after explanation :
I have a right, A, health insurance or B, I pay for that insurance, and I have child, C, my child is my liability and that engage me, my child have the same right to be protected by my insurance, it is told, he is beneficiary (In French, ayant-droit). Question : is the beneficiary have a legal cause in the contract ? Normally, the health insurance company has one cause to its obligation, the insured, who pay the price, its obligation, the contract is perfected with that two debts or obligations. Why ? Because the health insurance meets his source in the obligation of the insured, the contract is synallagmatic. The insured has one cause with the right to be insured, he pays the bill, and the insurance must the coverage (in fine, do not male mistake between insured and beneficary, sometimes, the person is both , and in other times, you have two distinct persons the beneficiary and the insured). But with the law, the child is also covered by the insurance of the parents, he is told beneficiary but he is not, the child, the having cause, but the beneficiary, one other beneficiary. In that health insurance contract, the having cause is each other of the parties of the contract A and B, each person finding the source in the obligation of the other, one to pay the money the other to cover the insured. It’s very important because the beneficiary has the right to act in justice but, if parents don’t pay the debt of the insurance or if they die, the child lose his right. In other hand, you can have the a third party, C, having cause and in that case, the having cause has the right to act in justice against B (Even if, A, die or do not pay) such as the obligation or the right of A is extinguished but in that case it's not mandatory.
III Action paulienne et Action oblique : ayant cause (Having cause) et l’ayant droit (Beneficiary)
L'ayant droit a les mêmes droits et actions que celui qui les lui transmets, en ce sens, le contractant et l’ayant droit ont la même cause (ou encore leurs droits puise leur source dans le même fait générateur) contractuelle. Mais nul autre. Alors que, l’ayant cause a tous les droits que le lui transmets, le délégué, (Donc, là encore l’ayant cause puise la source de ses droits dans le même fait générateur que le contractant qui lui transmets lesdits droits) plus ses droits et actions propres (qui puisent ses ou sa source dans un autre fait générateur).
A est engagé envers B au bénéfice de C. Donc :
A est ayant cause de B
B est ayant cause de A
C est ayant droit et ayant cause de B mais n’est pas ayant cause de A
Et B et C sont également et par ailleurs ayant droit de A
C est dans un cas ayant droit et dans l’autre comme on l’a expliqué ayant cause. En tant que qu’ayant-droit, le bénéficiaire ne peut avoir plus de droit que l’assuré. Par contre, dans certaines hypothèses, l’ayant cause ou plutôt son droit survit au décès par exemple ou au non. Paiement de la prime dans le cas du contrat d’assurance. Dans l’action oblique et paulienne, le créancier est ayant cause car il a plus de droit que son débiteur, en effet, il possède ses droits de créance, plus les droits du débiteur à l’encontre de ses propres débiteurs (donc des débiteurs du débiteurs).
Dans le cas de l’action oblique et paulienne :
A signe avec B. B entame son patrimoine avec C
Alors on peut dire que en vertu du Code civil :
A est ayant cause de B
B est ayant cause de A
B et C sont deux deux respectivement ayant cause de C et B
Mais également et par ailleurs A est ayant cause de C car il possède en cas de fraude d’une action contre C qui est une action que B n’a pas (Pourquoi ? Car selon la règle " Nemo auditur propriam turpitidinem allegans ", nul ne peut se prévaloir de sa propre turpitude qui éteint toute action de B contre C, en cas de fraude et je dis bien en cas de fraude). Donc on a bien une cause qui trouve sa source dans un fait générateur autre que le contrat liant A et B. Le liability ici entre en jeu, la cause à l’action de A est la responsabilité délictuelle ou quasi délictuelle de C envers A et contractuelle de B envers A. Donc vous l’avez compris il y a novation ou encore translation de droits entre B et C qui avait un lien contractuel de droit ou de fait (la fraude, frais omnia corrumpit), alors A reçoit le droit de B en vertu de la loi en cas de fraude d'agir contre C, tout simplement. Certains parle de responsabilité extra-contractuelle aussi.
In others words
The beneficiary has the same rights and actions as the person who transfers them to him. In this sense, the contracting party and the having cause have the same contractual cause (or their rights derive from the same triggering event). But no other. Whereas, the having cause has all the rights that the delegate transfers to him (therefore, here again, the beneficiary derives the source of his rights from the same triggering event as the contracting party who transfers said rights to him) plus his own rights and actions (which derive their source from another triggering event).
A is bound to B for the benefit of C. Therefore:
A is the having cause of B
B is the having cause of A
C is the beneficiary and having cause of B but is not the having cause of A
And B and C are also, and moreover, the beneficiary of A
C is in one case the beneficiary and in the other, as explained, the having cause. As a beneficiary, the beneficiary cannot have more rights than the insured. On the other hand, in certain cases, the having cause, or rather their right, survives death (or payment default), for example, or not. Payment of the premium in the case of an insurance contract. In french oblique and Paulian actions, the creditor is the having cause because they have more rights than their debtor; in fact, they possess their rights to the claim, plus the debtor's rights against their own debtors (i.e., the debtors' debtors). In the case of oblique and Paulian action:
A signs with B. B encroaches on his assets with C.
So, we can say that under the French Civil Code:
A is the having cause of B.
B is the having cause of A.
B and C are respectively having cause of C and B.
But also, and moreover, A is the having cause of C because, in the event of fraud, he has an action against C, which is an action that B does not have (Why? Because according to the rule "Nemo auditur propriam turpitidinem allegans," no one can rely on his own turpitude, which extinguishes any action of B against C, in the event of fraud, and I do mean in the event of fraud). So we have a cause that finds its source in a generating fact other than the contract binding A and B. Liability comes into play here, the cause of A's action is the tortious or quasi-tortious liability of C towards A and the contractual liability of B towards A. So you have understood that there is novation or even transfer of rights between B and C who had a contractual link of law or fact (fraus omnia corrumpit), so A receives the right of B by virtue of the law in the event of fraud to act against C, quite simply. Some also speak of extra-contractual liability.
Author
Vidal Bravo - Jandia Miguel
Ingineer - Master II in law
Consumer law center - Training and research unit / Montpellier I
Panthéon - Assas / Paris II