Also known as: ponit in loco suo · substitution · loco suo
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
An appointment clause used in a power of attorney that designates an agent or substitute to exercise the principal's powers for the stated purpose.
Pedro Pacheco assigned his right to receive custom equipment from Precision Tools to Pablo Perez. The substitution would have required Precision Tools to deliver to a distant location and accept payment from a party with weaker credit. Because the change materially increased the seller's burden and risk, the assignment failed and Pedro retained the right to performance.
After Peak Performance failed to deliver the ordered machinery, Portia Price purchased equivalent equipment from another supplier without unreasonable delay. The cover purchase allowed Portia to recover the difference between the higher cost and the original contract price plus incidental damages.
Phoebe Park purchased estate property from the personal representative of Pilar Pena's estate. Phoebe acted in good faith and paid value without actual knowledge of any limitation on the representative's power. The transaction remained valid even though later proceedings revealed a procedural irregularity in the appointment.
Prime Logistics sold equipment to Paula Pierce under a clause that restricted her remedies to repair or replacement of defective parts. When a part failed, Paula sought broader damages but the court enforced the agreed limitation because the repair remedy did not fail of its essential purpose.
Pablo Perez assigned his right to payment under a supply contract to Phoenix Technologies. The original parties later modified the delivery schedule in good faith. The modification bound the assignee, which acquired rights only under the revised contract terms.
A plaintiff attempted to serve process on an out-of-state defendant by leaving papers with a local agent who lacked authority to accept them. Because the defendant had not been properly brought before the court through valid substitution of service, the judgment could not bind the absent party.
In February 1866, J.H. Mitchell obtained a judgment in an Oregon circuit court against Neff for less than $300 in an action for attorney services. At that time, Neff resided outside Oregon, received no personal service of process, and made no appearance in the case. The judgment was entered by default following constructive service by publication as authorized by the Oregon Code for non-resident defendants possessing property within the state. The Oregon Code also provided for attachment of a non-resident's property in money actions. No such attachment occurred with respect to the land at issue. Instead, after the judgment, an execution issued, leading to a levy on the land and its sale at a sheriff's auction. Pennoyer purchased the property at that sale and received a sheriff's deed. Separately, in 1866, the United States issued a patent to Neff for the same tract of land under the Donation Law of Oregon, which Neff valued at $15,000. Neff then brought suit against Pennoyer in the circuit court to recover possession of the premises based on his patent title. The lower court held the Oregon judgment invalid because of deficiencies in the affidavits used to obtain the publication order and to prove publication occurred. The Supreme Court of the United States granted review to consider the validity of the state court judgment and the resulting sheriff's sale.
View caseThe phrase authorizes the named agent to stand in the principal's place and exercise the designated powers. It creates a substitution that extinguishes the principal's direct right to performance and transfers that right to the agent for the scope of the appointment.
A substitution is ineffective when it would materially change the obligor's duty, increase the burden or risk, impair the chance of return performance, or reduce the value of the contract to the obligor. The original party therefore remains the proper party to enforce the right.
Cover allows the buyer to put a substitute seller in the original seller's place by making a reasonable purchase of replacement goods. The buyer then recovers damages measured by the difference between the cover price and the contract price.
Yes. A person who assists or deals with a personal representative in good faith receives the same protection as if the representative had properly exercised the power. Actual knowledge of the representative's status alone does not trigger a duty to investigate further.
…of negotiable paper and would strike a fatal blow at ordinary banking and commercial practices that rely upon renewal and substitution of negotiable securities for debt. The authorities both in England and in many American courts sustain the rule that a holder taking a negotiable instrument in payment of a pre-existing…