[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, intermediaries forge landlords' authorizations and sign contracts in the landlords' names, which constitutes unauthorized agency in civil law. According to Article 171 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, if the agent signs a contract in the name of the principal without authorization, the contract shall not be effective against the principal unless the principal ratifies it. The agent shall bear responsibility for the consequences; and the counterparty may urge the principal to ratify the contract within 30 days. If the counterparty acts in good faith, without negligence, and has reasonable grounds to believe that the intermediary has the authority to act on behalf of the principal, it may constitute apparent agency according to Article 172 of the Civil Code, and the contract shall directly bind the landlord. Whether the contract is effective depends on whether the landlord ratifies it and whether the apparent agency can be established. It is recommended to verify the authenticity of the authorization, keep records of communication and payment receipts at the first time, and consult a professional lawyer to evaluate the effectiveness and protection path if necessary. For more details, please refer to the following link:Legal services for real estate transactions and construction projects.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In second-hand housing and housing leasing transactions, it's not uncommon for intermediaries to forge authorizations, leading to disputes. Typical scenarios include: intermediaries holding privately forged power of attorney documents or privately carved seals of landlords, signing housing purchase contracts in the name of the landlords and collecting deposits on their behalf; landlords having terminated their entrustment, but intermediaries still signing contracts in their names and selling the same house to two buyers; tenants or intermediaries forging authorizations to sublet or resell the houses to others. Many buyers, trusting the store and agents, neglect to verify the authenticity of the documents until they encounter problems with the transfer of ownership or the landlord denying the transaction. Such transactions often lead to a series of losses, such as funds being withheld and the inability to deliver the houses. If handled improperly, it may also expose criminal risks such as forged seals. When encountering disputes over ownership and contract validity, it is advisable to seek legal assistance to protect one's rights and interests.Creditor-debtor relations and enforcement case servicesCoordinate the recovery of compensation.

II. Key points of contention

There are three core disputes in such cases. Firstly, the authenticity of the agency rights and subsequent ratification: Whether the agent has truly obtained authorization and whether the landlord subsequently ratified it directly determine whether the contract is effective for the landlord. Secondly, the determination of apparent agency: Whether the counterparty (buyer) is in good faith and without fault, and whether there is reason to believe that the agent has agency rights, is the key to whether the contract can directly bind the landlord. The court will comprehensively consider the store's public disclosure, the form of the authorization document, transaction habits, and the counterparty's obligation to verify. Thirdly, the allocation of legal consequences: When the contract is not ratified, the agent shall bear the performance or compensation liability to the counterparty, and the landlord is generally exempt from liability. However, when the counterparty is without fault, he may also claim protection for good faith reliance. For disputes involving the validity of the contract and agency rights, reference can be made to the relevant provisions of the Contract Law.Business and contract dispute services for enterprises.

III. Professional analysis by Hengluo Lawyers

Based on the practice of Hengluo Law Firm in handling disputes over the effectiveness of housing transactions, the court is extremely strict in reviewing the authenticity of the transaction and the authenticity of the authorization. In a second-instance case handled by attorney Li Yonghui of our firm, A Company signed a housing sales contract and processed the mortgage in the name of employee Zhang *. The first-instance court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence; after attorney Li Yonghui took over the case, he reconstructed the evidence chain around the flow of funds, the possession of title certificates and fees, and the agency agreement, claiming that the parties lacked a genuine sales agreement. The second-instance court applied the provisions of Article 146 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China on collusion in false declarations of intention, and ruled that the "sale" was invalid and ordered the house to be restored to A Company's name. Although this case involved a transaction under a false name, it still shows that when the apparent contract does not match the actual agreement and there are flaws in the authorization, the validity of the contract is easily denied. This case was handled by Beijing Hengluo Law Firm.Li YonghuiAttorney (practice license number: 11101199611955812, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. For disputes involving forged authorizations, Hengluo Law Firm usually recommends first securing evidence of the defects in the authorizations, then distinguishing between unauthorized agency and apparent agency to formulate litigation or negotiation strategies respectively, and, if necessary, coordinating with other legal proceduresSpecial services and other case servicesHandle issues involving the intersection of criminal and civil law.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis mainly includes Article 171 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) (rules on unauthorized agency and subsequent ratification, the counterparty's notice and right of revocation), Article 172 (apparent agency), and Article 146 (voidness of collusion and fraudulent manifestation of intention). Practical advice: Before signing the contract, require the agent to present the original power of attorney signed by the landlord and verify their identity. Try to sign the contract directly with the landlord or confirm it via video; pay the purchase price through a fund supervision account to avoid directly handing it to the agent; immediately send a letter to the landlord to request written confirmation or denial if there are doubts about the authorization; when the contract is not subsequently ratified, claim compensation from the agent in accordance with Article 171 and preserve evidence of their fraudulent conduct. If the seal is forged, report the case to the public security organ in a timely manner. For more operational details, please refer to the relevant provisions.Real estate sales and construction project services.

5. Hengluo Law Firm's Advice

When faced with agents forging authorizations, it is crucial not to rely solely on the store's reputation to relax verification procedures. The three key steps are: verify the original authorization, insist on confirming with the landlord in person, and ensure that the payment goes through financial supervision. If the contract has already been signed and the landlord refuses to acknowledge it, you should promptly secure evidence such as WeChat records, power of attorney, payment receipts, etc. to assess whether apparent agency exists. If it does, the contract is valid and can be continued to perform; if not, you can claim compensation from the agent and consider reporting the case to the police. Note the statute of limitations for related claims to avoid delays that make it difficult to provide evidence. If you need professional intervention, you can seek assistance throughBeijing Hengluo Law FirmMake an appointment for an assessment to clarify the path to protect one's rights and the key points of providing evidence.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the agent forged the contract with the landlord's authorised signature, and the landlord refuses to acknowledge it, can I still win the lawsuit?

The outcome depends on whether you constitute a bona fide counterparty. If you have fulfilled your reasonable due diligence obligations and have reason to believe that the agent has agency rights, the court may determine that apparent agency exists, and the contract will directly bind the landlord. You can continue to perform the contract or claim breach of contract damages. However, if you knew or should have known that the authorization was false, the contract will not be effective against the landlord, and you can only claim damages from the agent rather than require the landlord to perform the contract. Therefore, whether you can win the case does not depend on a promise, but on whether the evidence can prove that you acted in good faith and without negligence. It is recommended to collect records of the store's public announcements, the form of the authorization documents, industry transaction practices, and your due diligence process. After having a lawyer evaluate the probability of apparent agency existing, you can then decide on a litigation strategy. Do not easily believe in unrealistic guarantees of winning the case.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare for protecting my rights?

The core evidence includes: the power of attorney or the sample of the official seal held by the agent (used to verify authenticity), the house purchase and sale contract and the deposit receipt, the payment voucher and the bank transaction record (proving the whereabouts of the funds), the WeChat chat records and call recordings with the agent and the landlord, the store business license and the agent's information, as well as the written or audio evidence of the landlord's denial of authorization. If there is suspicion of seal forgery, it is necessary to apply for judicial appraisal and keep the receipt of the report. The organization of evidence should focus on the three points of "authorization defects - you have conducted reasonable verification - amount of loss", to prove that you acted in good faith without negligence and quantify the actual loss, providing support for the claim of apparent agency or seeking compensation from the agent.

Q3: If I sue the agent or the landlord, how much would the attorney's fees and litigation costs be approximately?

The litigation fees shall be paid in accordance with the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Fees", calculated cumulatively based on the amount of the litigation request, and shall be borne by the losing party or shared proportionally; the higher the amount of compensation claimed, the larger the base of the litigation fees. Lawyer's fees shall be charged on a piecework, hourly, or percentage basis based on the complexity of the case, the amount of the claim, and the workload, with no unified national standards. The specific fees shall be subject to the terms of the engagement contract. Where criminal reporting and civil claims are pursued concurrently, the fee structure may be more complex. It is recommended to consult a lawyer before suing to assess the likelihood of winning and the scope of compensation, and to compare the litigation fees, lawyer's fees, and the expected recovery of funds to avoid making small-scale disputes uneconomical due to high costs. When necessary, seek compliant arrangements for contingency fees.

Q4: How long does it usually take to resolve such disputes?

Civil first-instance ordinary procedures are generally concluded within six months, and summary procedures within three months; cases with clear facts and relatively small claims may apply summary procedures. If they involve seal appraisal, adding parties or criminal referral, the cycle will be significantly prolonged, possibly exceeding half a year. For appeals against judgments, the second-instance trial generally takes three months. If the other party refuses to perform after the judgment becomes effective, it is necessary to apply for enforcement. Overall, it often takes several months to over a year from filing a lawsuit to actual recovery of funds. It is recommended to apply for property preservation simultaneously during the litigation process and to seize the accounts of intermediaries or relevant personnel, so as to shorten the recovery time and enhance the bargaining leverage.

Q5: If I discover that the agent has forged the authorization, what should I do first?

It is recommended to proceed in four steps: First, immediately stop making payments or handing over the house, and require the agent to present the original power of attorney and contact the landlord in person for written verification; Second, comprehensively preserve evidence, including contracts, payment records, chat recordings, and information about the store and the agent. If the seal appears suspicious, apply for appraisal in time; Third, choose a path based on the verification results — if the landlord acknowledges the contract, continue to perform the contract; if the landlord does not acknowledge it and there is no apparent agency, send a letter of claim to the agent and consider reporting the case to the police; Fourth, if no agreement is reached, sue within the statute of limitations. If necessary, hire a lawyer to retrieve business registration and case-related information and apply for property preservation. Throughout the process, keep records of communication to avoid being passive in providing evidence due to oral handling.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in the Beijing area. The judicial interpretation in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for real estate transactions·Attorney Li Yonghui·Beijing Hengluo Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.