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

Debate on Validity of Unauthorized Guarantee of Corporate Legal Representative——Based on Art.61 Sec.3 of General Principles of Civil Law

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。

Regarding the validity of unauthorized guarantee of corporate legal representative, Art. 61 Sec. 3 of General Principles of Civil Law stipulates that a guarantee contract is valid if the other contracting party is in good faith by distinguishing inner relationship from outer relationship of a juristic person, i. e. a corporate guar- anteed contract with an outside party is valid unless the other party ＂knows or should know＂ the corporate legal representative has no authority according to the charter of the corporation. This rule forces an outside party to acquire and read the charter of a company before signing such kind of contracts. However, the British Company Act has abandoned the＂ constructive notice rule＂ according to the EU Corporate Directive based on the rule of German Commercial Code and laws of other continental law countries. Nevertheless, the similar＂ inherent au- thorization rule＂prevails in USA. This indicates that the Chinese rule should be revised by way of drafting its Civil Code.