|
First Fidelity Bank v. Government of Antigua & Barbuda --- US Court of Appeals, 2nd circuit, 1989 --- 877 F.2d 189
Facts
Lloydstone Jacobs, the ambassador of Government of Antigua and Barbuda signed for the loan from First National State Bank (First Fidelity's predecessor) for the purpose of renovation of Antigua's Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York which in fact invested in a casino. The repayment ceased and the bank sought repayment but did not succeed. Later the bank and Jacobs entered into settlement and signed a consent order; a complete waiver of Antigua's sovereign immunity from jurisdiction, attachment, and execution. Jacobs signed on behalf of the Government with Robert Healy as the Government's attorney. But the payment ceased again and the bank executed and attached bank accounts maintained by Antigua's embassy. As to First Fidelity's complaint (appellee), the Government (appellant) then claimed Jacobs had acted without authority in borrowing money and consenting to the settlement therefore the consent order should be vacated. The lower court found for the bank. The Government appealed.
Issue
Is the bank (third party)’s reliance on the ambassador (agent)’s apparent authority from its government (principal) to borrow the money and to waive sovereign immunity reasonable therefore the government should be responsible for its agent’s decision?
Rules
the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27
a principal causes his agent to have apparent authority by conduct which, reasonably interpreted, causes third persons to believe that the principal consents to have an act done on his behalf.
Ford v. Unity Hosp., 32 N.Y.2d 464, 472, 299 N.E.2d 659, 664, 346 N.Y.S.2d 238, 244 (1973)
One who deals with an agent does so at his peril, and must make the necessary effort to discover the actual scope of authority.
Application
First, the appellee argues that Restatement of Foreign Relations should be applied therefore the appellant is binding by its ambassador’s act. The court rejected as this case not relating to foreign relations but rather commercial transactions. Next, the appellee argues that under the given circumstances, Jacobs presented himself as a proper agent of the appellant (the Restatement (Second) of Agency § 27), the appellant should be bound for Jacobs' decision. The appellant claims that Jacobs exceeded his actual and apparent authority in borrowing the money, and waiving sovereign immunity, therefore it should retain its own sovereign immunity and not be responsible. Here, to resolve this matter, the court focused on the duty of inquiry according to Ford v. Unity Hosp; the appellee must make the necessary effort to discover the actual scope of authority. Since the appellee did not fulfill its duty, it is difficult to conclude that the appellee’s reliance upon their apparent authority was reasonable. Hence, it cannot be said the appellant is responsible for its agent’s decision.
Holding
No, because the bank did not fulfill its duty to inquiry, its reliance on the ambassador’s apparent authority is not reasonable hence the Government is not responsible.
Conclusion
Remanded
Feedback
어려운 케이스였습니다. 단순히 Apparent authority와 관련된 판례라고 생각했는데 inquiry duty, sovereign immunity 등 여러 개념이 혼재되어 있었습니다.
여기서는 대사 (special agent)와 국가(principal)와 은행 (third party)가 등장합니다. 문제는 제3자와 대사 사이에 맺어진 계약을 국가가 몰랐을 때, 은행은 구제받을 수 있는가에 대한 판례입니다. 선의의 제3자라면 구제받을 수 있습니다. 다만 자신 몫의 의무를 다 해야 합니다. 여기서는 그렇지 못했습니다. 저는 다음과 같이 이해했습니다.
1심
Foreign relations restatement가 적용되는가? ⇨ 그렇다 ⇨ Sovereign immunity 적용 안됨 (because the loan fell within the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act's commercial activity exception.) ⇨ 따라서 국가가 consent order 책임져야 함
즉, Foreign relations restatement 적용되고, commercial activity (apparent authority 확인) 였고 Sovereign immunity 적용 안 됨, 국가 책임/ rigid rule approach
2심
Foreign relations restatement가 적용되는가? ⇨ 아니다 ⇨ Sovereign immunity exception 적용 안 됨 ⇨ 그렇다면 Sovereign immunity니까 국가가 책임을 안 지는가? ⇨ commercial activity이니까 apparent authority 있었지를 따져봐야 함 ⇨ 팩트에 따라 결과 달라짐, flexible approach ⇨ 어떤 팩트가 요구되는가? 1) principal's manifestations to third persons (일반적인 업무 지시 사항이라고 볼 수 있는가? 불법 행위는 아닌가?) 2) whether the person relying on the apparent authority fulfilled his "duty of inquiry." ⇨ duty of inquiry 없었으니 apparent authority 를 성립하기엔 부족
즉 Foreign relations restatement 적용 안 됨, commercial activity (apparent authority 확인 필요), 은행이 duty of inquiry 하지 않았음, apparent authority가 있다고 말할 수 없음 / flexible approach / 1심과는 다른 룰을 적용했기에 결국 remanded.
기억해야 할 것은 “agency law is flexible enough”입니다. Facts에 따라 apparent authority의 존재 여부가 달라집니다. 버스 기사가 다른 목적으로 노선을 이탈하여 주행하다가 사고를 냈을 때 버스 회사는 책임지지 않습니다. 일반적인 업무 행위에서만 principal은 책임을 집니다. 또한 이 케이스에서 미국은 inquiry를 중요하게 생각하는 국가라는 것도 알 수 있습니다. (재산법에서도 비슷한 케이스 있음)
*디센팅
Apparent authority 없어도 Restatement of Agency에는 Inherent Agency Power라는 것이 있다. (the power of an agent which is derived … solely from the agency relation and exists for the protection of persons harmed by or dealing with a servant or other agent) 이 개념은 제3자를 구제해 주기 위해서라도 적용되어야 한다. (obliging third parties who supply such goods and services to ascertain from the foreign government in each instance whether the ambassador has actual authority … strikes me as the one to be avoided.) Majority의 결정은 선량한 제3자가 외국 정부에 적절한 서비스를 제공하는 데 부정적인 영향을 끼칠 것. (The majority's unwillingness to recognize an ambassador's inherent authority in this context will, I fear, have the unfortunate consequences of making some vendors unwilling to extend credit for goods and services ordered by embassies and impelling others to make potentially intrusive and resented inquiries of foreign governments.)
|