If there is more than one director, a document signed by a single director cannot be binding, as that director may not be entitled to retain the company. Agent Choo had admitted that he was clearly entitled to act on behalf of CEPCO, the undertaking concerned by this case, in concluding the management contract. This was also supported by the actions taken by CEPCO staff and its Board of Directors, who acted in a manner that supported Choo`s representation, such as Choo`s appointment to CEPCO`s Board of Directors and Choo`s admission to chair Board meetings. When it is established that the signatures are true signatures (and not false signatures), the company is prevented from refusing the authority of the persons who affixed the actual signature (decision of the Court of Appeal in the case of Bd against Augusto Pompeo Romei & Anor  3 MLJ 672). The first defendant, who was a contracting party, had to prove that he had reasonably assumed that an agent named Simon Wong had the obvious power to authorize the sale of the products with Playboy`s trademarks and designs. However, in analyzing the evidence relied on by the first defendant, the Tribunal found that the first defendant had not shown that Playboy had never made a presentation or created a situation to show that it had given Simon the power to authorize the first who had made use of his projects. For a detailed overview of electronic signatures, which are becoming more frequent, please read the article by Sive Ozer and David Strong on our news and events page – www.marriottharrison.co.uk/media/mh-updates/mh-corporate-14/. The Court also referred to the fact that the agreement was indeed a “major transaction” under the Companies Act and that in any event it would have required a dissolution of 75% of the shareholders (unlike the directors) for the agreement to be valid. . . .