法定代表人越权担保行为效力再审——以民法总则第61条第三款为分析基点

发布时间：2018-10-25 07:47

【摘要】：民法总则第61条第三款基于"内外有别"的法理确立了"善意有效"的规则,将法定代表人越权担保的规范适用重点引致到"知道或者应当知道"的判断当中。英国对"推定公知"规则的放弃,以及美国判例法中对"固有授权"规则的设计与运用都表明,在法定代表人越权行为中,应坚持"原则有效,例外无效"的立场,并就具体情况得出具体结论。"知道或者应当知道"这一"除外条款"的立法表达范式,不当限缩合同有效范围,并未考量商事活动对交易便捷与交易促进的现实需求。应经由民法典编纂,实现越权代表问题的体系缝隙弥合,并就越权担保行为划定"善意(不知情或不应当知情)有效"、"不为善意(知道或应当知道)类型化有效"以及"恶意串通无效"的效力区间,以实现越权担保效力规则的体系性优化。
[Abstract]:The third paragraph of article 61 of the general rule of civil law establishes the rule of "bona fide validity" on the basis of the legal principle of "internal and external differences", and focuses the application of the legal representative's warranty beyond its authority to the judgment of "know or ought to know". The abandonment of the "presumption of public knowledge" rule in the United Kingdom and the design and application of the "inherent authorization" rule in the case law of the United States indicate that the legal representative should adhere to the position of "the principle is valid and the exception is invalid" in the ultra vires conduct of the legal representative. And draw specific conclusions on specific circumstances. " Knowing or should know the legislative expression paradigm of "this exclusion clause", limit the effective scope of contract improperly, and do not consider the actual demand of commercial activity for the convenience and promotion of transaction. The system gap of the problem of ultra vires representation should be bridged through the codification of the civil code. And delimits the effective zones of "good faith (uninformed or uninformed) validity", "no good faith (knowing or ought to know) type validity" and "malicious collusion invalidation" in respect of ultra vires security conduct, In order to realize the systematic optimization of the rules of ultra vires security effectiveness.
【作者单位】：西南财经大学法学院;
【基金】：国家社科基金研究课题“法人代表权限制的效力规则研究”(项目批准号15BFX099)”
【分类号】：D923

【相似文献】