《公司法》第16条强制性质解释的误区及重构

The Misunderstanding and Reconstruction of the Mandatory-Law-Features of Article 16 of Corporation Law

《公司法》第16条为公司提供担保规定了"限制性"要求。当前主流裁判认为,该条是"管理性强制性规定",且"不具有对抗或约束第三人"的效力,据此得出了违反该条并不导致担保无效的结论。这种法律适用的思路是错误的。只有斩断《公司法》第16条与《合同法》第52条第(五)项的联结,才能纠正公司担保效力认定问题上的法律适用错误。现有理论试图构建新的解释路径,以求摆脱适用困境。然而,新的路径,要么拘泥旧有框架,要么需付出更大的理论代价,均不足取。《公司法》第16条具有积极强制与消极强制两个方面。积极一面,以公司自治行为——章程和决议——为对象;消极一面,以排除法定代表人以公司名义为担保为目的。两者均非《合同法》第52条第(五)项意义上的强制。

The Article 16 of Corporation Law provided restrictive requirements for corporation to provide guaranty. The majority opinion of the courts is that this Article is a managerial-mandatory regulation which without the effect of confrontation or restraint of the third party. Breaching of this regulation can never make such contract void. However,the majority opinion is wrong. The only way to eliminate the mistakes of law application and interpretation for solving the problems of the validity of surety contract is to totally cut off the incorrectly-built links between the Article 16 of Corporatiom Law and the Article 52 of Contract Law. The Article 16 has two mandatory dimensions,one is positive,and the other is negative. The positive one put restrains on corporation's autonomic activities,such as constituting the Charter and decision-making. The negative one aims to exclude primarily corporation's legal representative from signing the surety contract in the name of the corporation. Both of them are basically irrelevant with Subdivision 5 of Article 52 of Contract Law.