The unilateral negotiation of the power of attorney is subject to the indefectible principle of the necessary specificity/determinability of the object under penalty of nullity of the contracts and unilateral negotiations pursuant to articles. 1346 e 1324 c.c.

It is necessary, in relation to the credits entrusted to the agent for management, than in the prosecutor's office the individual credits or the types of credit entrusted to the management of the agent are indicated. A generic indication to "credits entrusted to management”, since such credits are not identifiable with respect to the amount of the credit, to the debtor's personal details and the title from which the credit itself originates.

The principle was recently expressed and reiterated by a ruling of Court of Bergamo, 31 January 2022 – G.U. Lean.

The Court, in the aforementioned provision, to this end, recalls the principle of law expressed by the Supreme Court: “With reference to the mandate with representation - and the unilateral power of attorney transaction, that, on a substantial level, of the first constitutes implementation shop (whatever it is, Then, the expressive form it takes in practice) – said requirement [of determinacy (or determinability) of the object] and the related public interest are reflected not only in the mandate contract, but also, and separately, on the unilateral power of attorney transaction. Not, in this last regard (of the proxy shop), it is also important to underline that it comes to the fore here, in one with other interests, as well as the need to protect the interests of third parties, as subjects intended to come into contact with the representative: according to the provisions of the art. 1393 c.c., indeed, «the third party who contracts with the representative can always demand that the latter justify his powers and, if the representation results from a written document, that he give him a copy signed by him». (Cass. Civ. Sez. 6, Ordinance no. 28803 of the 07/11/2019).

It follows that a power of attorney that, albeit listing in detail the content of the powers conferred on the agent, does not indicate precisely which credits are entrusted to the management of the agent, not making it practicable to precisely identify the legal relationships that are the subject of the contract and the dispute, must be considered void by virtue of the combined provisions of the articles. 1418, 1346, 1324 c.c.

The president, therefore, must be considered lacking procedural legitimacy.