Judicial principles and studies
Financial recovery and compensation for loss arising from an oral agency contract
The plaintiff’s claims split into a contractual claim against the oral agent and a restitution claim against the recipient; the principles distinguish agent liability limits from unjust enrichment against the beneficiary.
Compensation and insurance
Judicial principles and studies
Updated: 10 September 2026
Editorial summary of a judicial principle or decision; consult the source below and do not treat the firm as the author of the decision.
Smart reading summary
Understand and share the study quickly
The plaintiff’s claims split into a contractual claim against the oral agent and a restitution claim against the recipient; the principles distinguish agent liability limits from unjust enrichment against the beneficiary.
Key points
- Subject
- Summary
- Practical significance
Useful for: Useful for initial reading and identifying questions that may need legal review.
This automatic summary is based on the published text. It is not legal advice and does not replace checking official sources and reviewing the facts with a qualified lawyer.
AI generation is optional and subject to Gemini usage limits. Do not send client data or attachments from this card.
Subject
The dispute concerns the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant based on an oral agency to purchase a plot of land and register it in the second defendant’s name (the plaintiff’s wife) until the plaintiff’s return from travel.
Summary
The cited provisions establish that contractual terms bind the contracting parties and should be enforced in accordance with good faith, and that an aggrieved party may seek either performance or rescission of the contract (arts. 87/199/202/246). The plaintiff did not allege that the first defendant exceeded the agency’s authority or failed to perform the agency; accordingly, the first defendant is not automatically liable for the second defendant’s refusal to transfer the land or to return its value, and the claim against her is subject to available defenses. As to the second defendant, the plaintiff’s claim rests on unjust enrichment under article 293 of the Civil Code, which presumes that property transfers occur only by agreement or by law, and that transfers outside those bases must be restored. Because the claim against the second defendant is founded on unjust enrichment, it is legally grounded and should be addressed by the appellate court on that basis.
Practical significance
The summary shows that contractual claims against an agent require proof of breach or excess of authority to establish liability, whereas recovery claims lie directly against the beneficiary when unjust enrichment is present. This is a general educational summary, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Frequently asked questions
Subject?
The dispute concerns the plaintiff’s claim against the first defendant based on an oral agency to purchase a plot of land and register it in the second defendant’s name (the plaintiff’s wife) until the plaintiff’s return from travel.
Summary?
The cited provisions establish that contractual terms bind the contracting parties and should be enforced in accordance with good faith, and that an aggrieved party may seek either performance or rescission of the contract (arts. 87/199/202/246). The plaintiff did not allege that the first defendant exceeded the agency’s authority or failed to perform the agency; accordingly, the first defendant is not automatically liable for the second defendant’s refusal to transfer the land or to return its value, and the claim against her is subject to available defenses. As to the second defendant, the plaintiff’s claim rests on unjust enrichment under article 293 of the Civil Code, which presumes that property transfers occur only by agreement or by law, and that transfers outside those bases must be restored. Because the claim against the second defendant is founded on unjust enrichment, it is legally grounded and should be addressed by the appellate court on that basis.
Practical significance?
The summary shows that contractual claims against an agent require proof of breach or excess of authority to establish liability, whereas recovery claims lie directly against the beneficiary when unjust enrichment is present. This is a general educational summary, not a judicial text or legal advice.
Sources and references
Verify the official text and latest amendments before relying on this material professionally.
Study collection
Companies, contracts, and investment
Browse the other studies in this subject through its dedicated topical section.
Open study collectionA related service path
Corporate, governance, and investment advice
If this study is close to your matter, review the service scope and contact the firm to discuss the facts and documents.
Review the related serviceRelated Jordanian-law guides
Contextual links to related public guide routes; they remain limited to Jordanian law and do not replace matter review.