再论一般职员职务行为的效力认定——从《民法通则》第43条到《民法总则》第170条

On Legal Force of the Duty Behavior of Personnel——From Act. 43 of General Principle of The Civil Law to Act.170 of General Principle of The Civil Code of PRC

针对企业一般职员在缺乏授权的情况下以企业名义对外实施的经营活动,司法实践中有不少法院依据《民法通则》第43条认定职务行为从而将其行为法律效果直接归属于企业。这种做法虽然在一定程度上缓解了一般职员对外代理不足的问题,但无论是司法实践还是学术界均对能否依据第43条直接认定职务行为的效果归属于所在法人存在较大的争议,且不论该条款还存在适用范围过窄、用语模糊、司法适用不统一等问题。2017年3月出台的《民法总则》首次以一般条款的形式明确规定了职务代理,其规定虽然解决了《民法通则》第43条是否为职务代理规定的争议,但该条款也存在适用范围过宽、增加组织体经营风险和成本的问题,在适用中应当进行限缩。

As to the legal force of the duty behavior of personnel in an enterprise,there are two main methods in the juridical practice:one is direct application of Act.43,the other is the identification of agency.These two different methods,which function in practice,mutually contradict and consequently damage the unification of law application.It is unreasonable and unsupported to accredit the effects of a personnel’s behavior to an enterprise directly pursuant to Act.43.From the perspective of interpretative theory,Act.43 shall be applied to either tort or agent who has express or apparent authority.And with the codification of civil law,the manager agent and agent to sell,rather than duty agent shall be legislated.