无权代理人对恶意相对人之责任

Unauthorized Agent’s Responsibility to Counterparty in Bad Faith

我国《民法总则》第171条第4款的规范对象限于无权代理人对恶意相对人的责任。该款规定在法政策上有其妥当性,因为代理人原则上应承担无权代理的风险,恶意相对人在一定情形下亦可能值得保护。相较于'全有或全无'的规范模式,此种过失相抵规范模式更为灵活,有助于在个案中实现对妥当性的追求。在同条第3款明确要求相对人善意的情况下,该款规定可以避免法官在相对人恶意时一概排除无权代理人的责任。该款规定应定性为责任承担规范,在责任原理上宜采《侵权责任法》第6条第1款的一般侵权责任构成。在分担责任时,有约定则从其约定,此时无过失相抵的适用余地;无约定则应根据过失相抵法理进行责任分担,相对人明知代理权欠缺并不足以排除无权代理人之责任;无权代理人对于代理权欠缺之明知亦不一定令其负全责,而应根据相对人的过错程度进行区别处理。

The normative object of Paragraph 4 of Article 171 of the General Provisions of Civil Law shall be limited to the liability of the unauthorized agent to the counterparty in bad faith.This Paragraph is a rational legislation,because the agent normally should bear the risk of unauthorized agency,and the counterparty in bad faith may also be worth protecting under certain circumstances.Compared with the normative model of'all or none,'the normative model of contributory negligence is more flexible and helps to seek appropriate results in individual cases.When Paragraph 3 of the same article expressly requires the goodwill of the counterparty,the existence of Paragraph 4 can avoid the judge excluding the responsibility of the unauthorized agent in case of bad faith of the counterparty.At the time of sharing responsibility,it will be handled as agreed if there is an agreement,and there is no room for application of contributory negligence;if there is no agreement,responsibility should be shared according to the theory of contributory negligence.It is not enough to exclude the responsibility of the unauthorized agent that the counterparty knows of the unauthorized agency;the unauthorized agent does not necessarily have full responsibility for the unauthorized agency,and it should be treated differently according to the degree of fault of the counterparty.