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.
The opening ends here.
You have just read the part that poses the problem. That is deliberately where open access stops. The corpus is a personal research project carried on since 1998, and the question has always interested me more than the conclusion.
Want to publish your own articles?
Join the Digital Synapse Exchange community and share your research.