Court dismissed claim that club authorization constitutes a mandate contract without explicit duty to act.

The Supreme Court dismissed the football player's cassation appeal against the lower courts' rejection of his damages claim. The player argued that the club's authorization to handle transfers created a mandate contract under Civil Code provisions, yet the courts found no specific obligation for the club to secure a new contract. The court ruled that mere authorization without a binding duty to perform legal acts does not constitute a mandate contract, thus rejecting the player's request for compensation.