Practice question
Principal does not prohibit substitution but grants no specific appointment power. Agent appoints a substitute and 1892(1) applies. Is appointment necessarily treated identically to appointment against an express prohibition?
- Every unprohibited appointment necessarily violates an express prohibition.
- No agent can ever appoint anyone.
- Only the substitute may define the statute.
- The distinction automatically eliminates all liability.
- No; the article distinguishes agent responsibility from the separate prohibited-appointment voidness rule.
Legal references
- Civil Code Articles1649-1652,1663-1668,1870-1875,1890-1893 and1921-1932: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.