11 March 2015

Doing business with foreign companies – who has authority to sign contracts?

This article was written by Edmund Tyler (Professional Support Lawyer, Corporate) and Michael Goldberg (Partner, Corporate).

A recent English Court of Appeal decision provides a reminder of the need to investigate signing authorities carefully when contracting with foreign companies. It underlines the message that it is not possible to assume that what works for an English company will work for a foreign company, even when English law governs the contract.

In this case, the contract was between two Swiss companies, but its terms said that it was governed by English law. For one of the companies, the contract had been signed by one of its two "prokurists" – authorised signatories. However, under Swiss law, the company required both its two prokurists to sign a contract, jointly. This enabled the company to argue that it had not signed the contract properly and it should not be binding on it.

The party seeking to enforce the contract made a number of arguments as to why the contract should still be binding under English law, including arguments based on the “Rome I” Regulation on cross-border contracts within the EU (which generally gives effect to the parties’ choice of law for a contract). It also tried to rely on long-standing UK regulations that specify how foreign companies sign English law contracts. These seem to give some protection to those contracting with foreign companies who act in good faith and pay the contract price, provided the contract “purports to be” signed by someone who is authorised in accordance with the law of the company’s country of incorporation.

Unfortunately for the claimant, these arguments were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. Regarding Rome I, it ruled that the question of who has authority to sign for a company has to be decided by the local law of the company's country of incorporation – i.e. Swiss law, in this case – regardless of the law governing the main contract. In relation to the UK regulations on foreign companies, it was not enough for the contract to appear to be signed by someone authorised, it was still “necessary to ask oneself what the requirements of Swiss law are and whether the contract purported to be signed in accordance with them".

The upshot was that the contract had not been signed properly and would not be binding on the company that had only used one of its two required signatories.

This narrow reading of Rome I and the UK regulations will be frustrating for those hoping for a more pragmatic approach from the courts, given that it is often not straightforward to find out how a foreign company signs documents. The case makes clear, however, that it is always necessary to establish who has authority to sign for a foreign company under its local law and then ensure that the contract appears to be signed by them. It is not enough, for example, for the contract to be signed by someone who states that they have the necessary authority to sign for the company under local law.

From a practical point of view, when contracting with a company based in an unfamiliar jurisdiction, as a minimum, proof of authority should be requested from the proposed signatories. While on its own this has evident limitations, it should at least focus the minds of the signatories on the issue, given that they may have personal liability if they misrepresent their authority. However, this may not address any other formalities that may be needed (such as whether a notary needs to be involved). Best practice, clearly, is to obtain a formal legal opinion from a lawyer based in the company’s country of incorporation, but this will not always be practical or cost-effective for smaller deals. A compromise solution may be to seek less formal legal advice on the typical position for companies based in the jurisdiction.

The position remains unsatisfactory for those trying to conduct business across borders, but the clear message of this case is that caution needs to be exercised.

Case: Integral Petroleum S.A. v SCU-Finanz AG [2015] EWCA Civ 144

A Guide to Doing Business in China

We explore the key issues being considered by clients looking to unlock investment opportunities in the People’s Republic of China.

Doing Business in China
Share on LinkedIn Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Google+
    You might also be interested in

    On 28 November 2018 the Attorney-General introduced the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Legislation Amendment Bill 2018.

    04 December 2018

    Negotiating a deal that you and your investment committee are happy with is no longer enough for many private fund investors. Instead, Fear of Missing Out is a common investor mindset.

    24 September 2018

    Australia’s new Prime Minister, Scott Morrison has promised the long awaited Indonesia-Australia free trade agreement by Christmas. The announcement is a good news story for international trade in...

    05 September 2018

    Offering co-investment opportunities to certain fund investors is a key trend for fund sponsors in establishing alternative investment funds.

    25 June 2018

    You may also be interested in...

    Legal services for your business

    This site uses cookies to enhance your experience and to help us improve the site. Please see our Privacy Policy for further information. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive these cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

    For more information on which cookies we use then please refer to our Cookie Policy.