A US citizen residing in Mexico purchased 223 hectares near Bariloche. The operation was carried out through a real estate agency almost 20 years ago.
Years later, the son of the owner of the real estate took the administration. “According to the plaintiff, the relationship began to deteriorate due to irresponsible conduct in relation to the rendering of expenses,” the Judiciary reported.
When the situation did not give for more, the man revoked the power of administration and appointed another administrator who began with some maintenance and wiring tasks. However, they warned that a part of the property it had been leased to use as a quarry.
According to the judicial presentation made by the owner, “a lease contract dated one year before the revocation of the power of attorney that the real estate company had appeared. It had been signed between the previous administrator and those who operated the quarry. The lease was for 20 years and as consideration they had to improve the property.
The American initiated a legal process to ask for the unenforceability of the contract. In this way, the agreement is only valid between the parties that signed it but cannot affect third parties. The real estate company, despite having the power of administration, could not sign that exploitation contract without the consent of the owner.
The plaintiff argued that “never authorized the signing of that contract”. Meanwhile, those who exploited the quarry indicated that they signed a contract, that they did their work peacefully until they were dispossessed by the owner’s new attorney. They denied that it was a simulation of the contract and that the real estate company had sufficient powers to sign.
The judge considered that the person in charge of the real estate agency was empowered to enter into the lease contract but that he did not have the authority to agree on the payment method agreed upon: that is, compensation through improvements. He finally declared the contract unenforceable “for having acted the agent in excess of the limits of the mandate”.