Presumption of the Mandator’s Property in Private Law Doctrine and Judicial Practice
Keywords:
Mandator; Mandatary, Mandatary’s Creditor, Mandator’s Property and Rights, Presumption, Mandate, Entrustment of Ownership, Commission Agreement.Abstract
In both substantive civil law relations and civil procedural law, the category of presumptions has crucial importance. Legal doctrine and judicial practice recognize and apply two types of presumptions: legal (statutory) presumptions and factual, or judicial presumptions. The significant role of presumptions is due to, on the one hand, by the need for accurate legal qualification of the legal relationship existing between the parties and, on the other hand, by the necessity of the correct allocation of the burden of proof.
The subject matter of this research is narrow in scope. It does not aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of the category of presumptions in law, which would in any event be impossible within the framework of a single article. Instead, the study focuses on one specific legal presumption, the presumption of the mandator’s property in private law. The provision containing this presumption, enshrined in Article 716 of the Civil Code of Georgia, is a multifaceted norm, which leads to difficulties in qualifying the legal relationships regulated by it.
In Georgian legal scholarship, this problem has not been examined as an independent subject of research. However, practice clearly demonstrates the practical significance of legal relationships that arise in one’s own name but at the expense of the mandator. The correct application of the norm is impossible without adequate scholarly research. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to determine the precise legal meaning of the provision on the presumption of the mandator’s property, its scope of application, the addressee of the norm, the content and nature of the legal relationship arising from it, and whose interests the given norm serves.
As a result of examining this problem, the functional purpose of the institution provided for by the norm will be identified, along with the cases in which the application of the norm is permissible and the types of relationships regulated by it. This, in turn, will enable courts to apply the norm correctly, contribute to the formation of consistent judicial practice, and foster the development of private law doctrine.
References
1. Civil Code of Georgia, 26/06/1997. (In Georgian.)
2. Convention on the “Representation of the International Trade of Goods”, 17/02/1983.
3. Law of Georgia on Entrepreneurs, 02/08/2021. (In Georgian.)
4. The Civil Procedure Code of Georgia, 14/11/1997. (In Georgian.)
5. Gotua, L., Some Legal Aspects of the Regulation of Factoring in Georgia, “Law Journal,” No. 2, 2018, p. 24. (In Georgian)
6. Rusiashvili, G., “Contract for the management of another’s affairs (Geschaftsbesorgungsvertrag) and fiduciary ownership”, Georgian German Journal of Comparative Law, https://lawjournal.ge/3244235235-2/ [25.09.2025]. (In Georgian.)
7. Skhirtladze, K., Legal Regulation of the Commission Contract, David Aghmashenebeli University of Georgia, Seminar Paper in Research Skills, Doctoral Program in Law, Tbilisi, 2022, p. 12. (In Georgian.)
8. Supreme Court of Georgia, Civil Cases Chamber, Ruling of 30 April 2018, Case #ას-260-248-2017. (In Georgian.)
9. Supreme Court of Georgia, Civil Cases Chamber, Ruling of 31 July 2017, Case #ას-712-665-2017. (In Georgian.)
10. Supreme Court of Georgia, Civil Cases Chamber, Decision of 13 December 2013, Case #ას-398-377-2012. (In Georgian.)
11. Tbilisi City Court, Civil Cases Panel, Default Decision of 14 November 2023, Case #2/23757-22. (In Georgian.)
12. The principles of European Contract Law (PECL).
13. German Commercial Code, 10/05/1897.
14. Commercial code of France, 18/09/2000.
15. Canaris C.-W., Handelsrecht, München: C.H. Beck, 2001.
16. Gernhuber J., Das Schuldverhältnis. Tübingen, 1989.
17. Koller I., Kindler P., Roth W.-H., Drüen K.-D., Handelsgesetzbuch: Kommentar, 9. Aufl., C.H. Beck 2019.
18. Larenz K., Lehrbuch des Schuldrechts. 14. Aufl. München, 1987.
19. Larenz K., Wolf M., Allgemeiner Teil des Bürgerlichen Rechts. 8. Aufl. München, 1997.
20. Leloup J.–M., Les agents commerciaux. Statuts juridiques. Strategies professionelles. Paris: DELMAS, 1993.
21. Lieder J., Wüstenberg T., Kommissionsgeschäft und Forderungszuordnung – Dogmatische Grundsatzfragen des §392 Abs. 2 HGB, JURA 2016.
22. Schmidt K., Gesellschaftsrecht, 5. Aufl., 2022.
23. Schmittgoff C., Agency in International Trade. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law, vol. 129, 1970.
24. Shubert C., Münchener Kommentar zum BGB, 10 Auflage. 2025.
25. Tuhr A., Allgemeiner Teil des schweizerischen Obligationenrechts. Tübingen, 1924, Halb bd 1.
26. Vilkova, N. G., Contract Law in International Circulation, Moscow, Statut, 2002, pp. 221–222; 273–274. (In Russian.)
27. Zimmermann R., The Law of Obligations, Oxford University Press, 1996.
28. Zweigert K., Kötz H., Einführung in die Rechtsvergleichung, 3. Aufl. Tübingen, 1996.
29. Buzbakh, V.V., Puchinsky, V. K., Ed., Civil and Commercial Law of Foreign Countries, textbook, Moscow, MCFER, 2004, pp. 210–211. (In Russian.)
30. Oberlandesgericht Köln, Urteil vom 16.09.2010 – 18 U 87/09.
31. Oberlandesgericht München, Beschluss vom 25.01.2017 – 34 Wx 359/16.
32. BGH Urteil vom 12. März 2003 – VIII ZR 179/02.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
