"21[…]
(2) A corporation may, within a reasonable time after it comes into existence, by any action or conduct signifying its intention to be bound thereby, adopt an oral or written contract made before it came into existence in its name or on its behalf, and upon such adoption,
(a) the corporation is bound by the contract and is entitled to the benefits thereof as if the corporation had been in existence at the date of the contract and had been a party thereto (הדגשה שלי – ח"מ)"
בדומה לסעיף 12 לחוק החברות, ההוראה הנ"ל – קובעת כי תאגיד רשאי, תוך זמן סביר, לאחר הקמתו – לאשרר חוזה, שנעשה בכתב או בעל-פה עבורו, עוד טרם שהוקם. כן נקבע, כי התאגיד מחויב בחוזה כאילו היה צד לחוזה במועד שבו נחתם החוזה עם היזם.
36. בארה"ב, על אף העובדה שאין חקיקה אחידה בתחום החברות – מרבית המדינות אימצו גם הן הסדר דומה שבגדרו יזם יכול להתקשר בחוזה בשם חברה שטרם התאגדה ואשר למענה הוא פועל, והחברה תהא רשאית לאשרר את החוזה מיד עם התאגדותה. באשר לאפשרותו של יזם לפעול למען חברה טרם הקמתה, נקבע ב- Restatement of Agency Third, בפיסקה 6.04 כדלקמן:
"Unless the third party agrees otherwise, a person who makes a contract with a third party purportedly as an agent on behalf of a principal becomes a party to the contract if the purported agent knows or has reason to know that the purported principal does not exist or lacks capacity to be a party to a contract.
[…]
Contracts made on behalf of entities yet to be formed. The rule stated in this section is applicable when a person purports to make a contract with a third party on behalf of an entity that does not exist. If that person and the third party manifest assent that the contract shall bind the third party, the person who purports to act on behalf of the entity is personally liable on the contract".
באשר ליכולתה של חברה לאשרר את פעולותיו של היזם, נקבע כי:
“in almost all states the English [common law] doctrine [prohibiting ratification of pre-incorporation contracts] has been repudiated, and it has been held that a contract made by the promoters of a corporation on its behalf may be adopted by the corporation, and thereupon the corporation is liable on the contract itself, not merely for the benefits received (see: Joseph H. Gross, Liability on Pre-Incorporation Contracts: A Comparative Review 18 McGill L. J. 512, 518 (1972).”