狭义无权代理人责任释论

Interpretation of Liability of Unauthorized Agents in the Narrow Sense

《民法总则》第171条第3、4款规定的狭义无权代理人对于善意/恶意相对人的责任分别基于不同的原则:前者属于积极信赖保护原则的范畴,兼具真意保留与表见代理的特质;后者是基于双方缔约过错致使法律行为无效的损失分担规则。狭义无权代理人就代理权瑕疵是否具有过失,对于积极信赖保护责任的承担仅具有形式意义,第3款不存在"法的漏洞"。行为人对代理权瑕疵构成"重大误解"并行使撤销权,亦不排斥积极信赖保护责任的法律效果。相对人的"善意"应解释为"非明知或非因重大过失而不知"无权代理,"恶意"则应解释为"明知或因重大过失而不知"无权代理。第3款赋予善意相对人实际履行与损害赔偿的选择权,包括行为人不履行债务的责任与替代履行债务的损害赔偿责任,均属于履行利益。狭义无权代理与表见代理均具有保护交易安全的功能,明晰并调和两者的适用领域,尽可能发挥前者的功用,有助于改变后者适用过于泛化而损害私法自治的司法现状。

According to Article 171,paragraphs 3 and 4 of the General Provisions of the Civil Law,the liability of the unauthorized agent to the counterpart in good/bad faith is respectively based on different principles: the former belongs to the category of the principle of active trust protection and has the characteristics of genuine intention reservation and apparent agency;the latter is the loss sharing rule that the legal act is invalid because of the fault of both parties. As for whether the authorized agent is negligent or not,the liability for active trust protection is only of formal significance. There is no"legal loophole"in paragraph 3. The actor constitutes a "major misunderstanding " of the defects of agency power and exercises the revocation right,which does not exclude the legal effect of active trust and protection responsibility. The "good faith"of the other party should be interpreted as "not knowing or not knowing due to gross negligence",and "malicious"should be interpreted as "knowing or not knowing due to gross negligence". Paragraph 3 entrusts the bona fide counterpart with the option of actual performance and damage compensation,including the actor’s liability for non-performance of the debt and the liability for alternative performance of the debt,both of which are expected interests. In the narrow sense,both unauthorized agency and apparent agency have the function of protecting the security of transactions,clarifying and reconciling the application fields of the two,and giving full play to the function of the former as far as possible,which is helpful to change the judicial status quo of the latter which is too extensive to damage the autonomy of private law.