Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16

The commentary refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment allowing a commercial proxy of a general partner, which is a legal person, to represent the limited partnership even if its management board is not fully appointed. Having agreed with the aforementioned statement, the author criticizes the reason...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Adrian Zbrojewski
Format: Article
Language:Polish
Published: Lodz University Press 2019-03-01
Series:Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Iuridica
Subjects:
Online Access:https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/Iuridica/article/view/2436
id doaj-58a4084161884e218b684fa372d17d83
record_format Article
spelling doaj-58a4084161884e218b684fa372d17d832020-11-25T00:34:36ZpolLodz University PressActa Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Iuridica0208-60692450-27822019-03-018613514710.18778/0208-6069.86.103475Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16Adrian Zbrojewski0Uniwersytet Łódzki, Wydział Prawa i Administracji, Katedra Prawa Gospodarczego i HandlowegoThe commentary refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment allowing a commercial proxy of a general partner, which is a legal person, to represent the limited partnership even if its management board is not fully appointed. Having agreed with the aforementioned statement, the author criticizes the reasons for the judgment. In particular, the commentary points out that Supreme Court did not make an analysis of the concept of ‘acts connected with running the enterprise’ which determines a scope of empowerment of the commercial proxy. As a consequence, the author tries to define the above-mentioned concept, which eventually leads the author to the conviction that the scope of commercial power of attorney comprises the exercise of the general partner’s rights in the limited partnership. The author also considers the issue of the invalidity of proceedings in terms of defectiveness of litigants’ representation.https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/Iuridica/article/view/2436prokurazakres prokuryprokurentreprezentacja spółki komandytowejkomplementariusz
collection DOAJ
language Polish
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Adrian Zbrojewski
spellingShingle Adrian Zbrojewski
Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Iuridica
prokura
zakres prokury
prokurent
reprezentacja spółki komandytowej
komplementariusz
author_facet Adrian Zbrojewski
author_sort Adrian Zbrojewski
title Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16
title_short Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16
title_full Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16
title_fullStr Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16
title_full_unstemmed Exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. Scientific commentary on the decision of the Supreme Court of 16 june 2016, V CZ 26/16
title_sort exercising a general partner’s rights in a limited partnership by its commercial proxy. scientific commentary on the decision of the supreme court of 16 june 2016, v cz 26/16
publisher Lodz University Press
series Acta Universitatis Lodziensis Folia Iuridica
issn 0208-6069
2450-2782
publishDate 2019-03-01
description The commentary refers to the Supreme Court’s judgment allowing a commercial proxy of a general partner, which is a legal person, to represent the limited partnership even if its management board is not fully appointed. Having agreed with the aforementioned statement, the author criticizes the reasons for the judgment. In particular, the commentary points out that Supreme Court did not make an analysis of the concept of ‘acts connected with running the enterprise’ which determines a scope of empowerment of the commercial proxy. As a consequence, the author tries to define the above-mentioned concept, which eventually leads the author to the conviction that the scope of commercial power of attorney comprises the exercise of the general partner’s rights in the limited partnership. The author also considers the issue of the invalidity of proceedings in terms of defectiveness of litigants’ representation.
topic prokura
zakres prokury
prokurent
reprezentacja spółki komandytowej
komplementariusz
url https://czasopisma.uni.lodz.pl/Iuridica/article/view/2436
work_keys_str_mv AT adrianzbrojewski exercisingageneralpartnersrightsinalimitedpartnershipbyitscommercialproxyscientificcommentaryonthedecisionofthesupremecourtof16june2016vcz2616
_version_ 1725312543480610816