Short answer. No. Civil Code Article 1888 says an agent shall not carry out an agency if doing so would manifestly result in loss or damage to the principal. When following your instruction would clearly harm you, the agent's duty is to stop — not to blindly obey.
What the law says
An agent shall not carry out an agency if its execution would manifestly result in loss or damage to the principal.
Civil Code, Article 1888 — No Execution That Damages the Principal. Read the full provision →
The duty to stop, not just to follow orders
An agent's primary job is to act on the principal's behalf — but Article 1888 draws a limit: An agent shall not carry out an agency if its execution would manifestly result in loss or damage to the principal. The word 'manifestly' is important. This is not about every inconvenient or imperfect deal. It applies when the harm is clear and obvious — a situation where any reasonable person in the agent's position would see that going through with the instruction would cause the principal a real loss. In that situation, the agent's duty is to pause and communicate, not to execute and explain later.
How this applies to changed conditions
Instructions given by a principal reflect the circumstances at the time they were given. Market conditions, valuations, and facts on the ground can shift after the agent receives an order. If those shifts are so dramatic that following the original instruction would now clearly harm the principal — for instance, selling at a price that has become far below market value, or completing a transaction that will result in a net loss — the agent should not proceed. The duty in Article 1888 protects principals from their own instructions becoming traps when conditions change unexpectedly.
What the agent should do instead
Stopping the execution of the agency is not a license for the agent to do nothing. The responsible course is to inform the principal of the changed circumstances and the manifest harm that would result from proceeding. The principal can then decide — with updated information — whether to modify the instruction, revoke it, or proceed anyway. If time does not permit consulting the principal and the agent has reason to believe that the principal would not have wanted the transaction completed under the new conditions, the agent's duty to avoid manifest harm takes precedence over strict compliance with the original order.
When the harm is not 'manifest'
Article 1888 sets a high standard: the loss or damage must be manifest — clear and evident. If the situation involves mere uncertainty, a moderately unfavorable price, or a transaction the agent personally dislikes, that is not enough to justify disobeying the principal's explicit instructions. Agents generally must follow their principal's directions. The exception is narrow and specific: obvious, undeniable harm is required before the agent is not just permitted, but actually required, to refuse to carry out the instruction. An agent who refuses to act without good reason under this exception may themselves face liability for the costs of that refusal.