The subjects of civil turnover make various types of transactions. This may be the sale, lease, gift, barter, and so on. At the same time, participants in the transaction can both be conscientious and not be so. In the first case, the actions of the subjects comply with the rule of law. Meanwhile, in practice, a transaction is concluded by an unauthorized person. Such an action involves a number of consequences both for the subject himself, who entered into a relationship, and for the one on whose behalf he acted. They are regulated by Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. Consider the provisions of the norm in more detail.
Art. 183 of the Civil Code
In some cases, entities carry out actions that they do not have rights to, or those that go beyond their legal capabilities. For example, a citizen can make only certain types of transactions on behalf of the enterprise. However, a situation arose when he entered into a relationship without having sufficient rights to it or having exceeded their limits. In this case, the transaction will be deemed concluded in his interests and on his behalf, unless the represented entity subsequently gives permission for it. Up to this point, the second side can withdraw from the relationship unilaterally. For this, the entity makes a corresponding statement. An exception to this rule is the case when a citizen knew or should have been aware of the absence of the corresponding authority of a representative. Subsequent permission of the entity on whose behalf the improper party acted, forms, terminates or changes its obligations and rights by agreement from the date of its signing.
If the approval of the transaction has not been received or has not been received within the prescribed time, a citizen who has committed it may be required to fulfill the conditions. Also, the second party has the right to cancel the agreement unilaterally, while requesting damages. Losses of compensation are not subject to, if the other participant knew or could know about the excess or absence of a citizen's corresponding authority. 
Comments
According to Art. 182 a citizen may act on behalf of a person represented in accordance with the authority expressed in the right of a representative to act on behalf of another person. The emergence, termination or change of duties or legal capabilities of an entity in whose interests it performs certain acts takes place only if they were implemented within the framework of the competence granted to it. It follows from this that for any representative office the availability of appropriate powers is necessary. The norm under consideration defines the consequences of unlawful actions of an entity acting on behalf of someone else. In Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation we are talking about a citizen who has certain rights, but goes beyond them, or does not have them at all, but acts contrary to this. When signing any agreements in such circumstances, for the subject on whose behalf he acted, no obligations and rights are created. For this person, the transaction will be deemed not concluded. 
Going beyond the limits of rights
In legal publications, it is proposed to subdivide the substantial and non-substantial excess of powers. Moreover, the evaluation criteria are associated with the consequences. So, recognized as significant abuse of authority, if it entails significant damage to the represented. For example, under Art. 973, paragraph 2, the attorney may depart from the instructions received by the principal.This is allowed in cases of emergency or when there is no possibility of sending a request, or the answer to it was not received within a reasonable time. In any of these situations, the attorney is obliged to notify the principal of the completed deviations as soon as the relevant conditions appear. If this is not done, Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Effects
In accordance with the general rule of Art. 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the actions of a subject on behalf of another in the absence of rights or going beyond their limits do not give rise to obligations or legal opportunities for whose interests they were committed. This rule is supplemented by three further provisions regarding consequences. The first refers directly to the unauthorized person, the second ensures the interests of third parties, and the third is aimed at protecting the represented. 
Results for the culprit
For a person who acted on behalf of another entity with excess or in the absence of authority, the consequences are reduced to the fact that he himself may become a party to the transaction concluded by him. Accordingly, the citizen will be liable and responsible for non-compliance with the conditions. For example, an entity rented a summer house for a co-worker’s family without the authority to do so. The contract will be considered signed. However, the tenant will be directly the subject who acted in the interests of a colleague. It is he who must pay for the use of the cottage or be responsible for the consequences if he refuses the agreement. These consequences are due to the lack of authority of the employee.
Transaction approval
Often, due to various objective reasons, the subject cannot enter into certain legal relations. For example, this does not allow making its legal status, a ban on the implementation of any activity, lack of a license, etc. For example, it is impossible to assign to an employee who is not an authorized representative of the enterprise, an obligation under contracts for the supply, supply, transportation of goods, etc. Agreements of this kind, unless permission is subsequently obtained, should be recognized as disputable or void (depending on specific factors). So, for example, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court indicated that the court is not entitled on the basis of paragraph 1 of Article 183 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to recognize the subject as a party to an agreement signed to amend or supplement the main contract. The specified document is considered void. This is due to the fact that this agreement acts, in fact, as part of the mentioned agreement. Accordingly, it cannot exist and be executed separately. 
Securing the interests of a third party
The rule determining that a citizen who acted without or with excess of authority becomes a party to the transaction, assumes that a third party was or should have been aware of this fact. The fact is that this subject always has the opportunity to check the availability of relevant rights. Third parties may be exempted from the obligation to fulfill the terms of the transaction if they can prove that they were not aware of the absence or excess of authority on the part of the citizen. It follows that the verification of the existence of the relevant rights by the counterparty acts as an integral element of the process of implementing relations. The need for it disappears in cases where the powers clearly follow from the situation in which the representative is located and operates. For example, the rights of a seller in a retail store, a receiver in a consumer services institution, and so on are understandable. 
Additionally
If a third party has not verified the authority of the entity with which it enters into a transaction, hoping to subsequently obtain permission from the represented, then it will be considered bound by the terms of the signed agreement. That is, in this case, the citizen knew about the absence of rights or their excess.If approval is subsequently obtained, he will not be able to refuse to fulfill the terms of the transaction.
