Abstract

The gloss concerns the issue of conflict between the interest of the proxy and the principal in case when the power of attorney has been granted to secure a claim. Granting the power of attorney is neither a fiduciary action nor a securing legal action but may fulfill an atypical function, namely secure claims. Thereupon, the power of attorney to secure claims should be allowed. The position of the Supreme Court that in the case of the power of attorney to secure claims the proxy should, in the first place, seek to perform the securing function and own interest, though should, as far as possible, protect the interest of the principal deserves to be accepted.