日常家事代理之批判

Criticism on “Schlüsselgewalt”

主张民法典回归日常家事代理的观点并不可取。日常家事代理以家庭主妇婚姻模式为基础,有违当代双薪夫妻共同管理家务之现状。日常家事代理将夫妻强制捆绑为连带债务人,在实践中已沦为债权人的“便车”,对婚姻有歧视之虞,亦带来民法教义上的“违和”。日常家事代理被错误地用来解释和建构夫妻共同债务规则,其既违反了债的相对性,又悖于夫妻共同财产制精神。奥地利、瑞典、苏格兰和欧洲家庭法协会均对其或废或改。最新一波中东欧民法典编纂浪潮均未继受日常家事代理。在日常家事代理走向委托代理家事的趋势下,鉴于我国不存在日常家事代理的历史接力,未来民法典婚姻家庭编大可放弃“跟随战略”,转而设计全新的家事委托代理规则。

It is not advisable to advocate that the civil code should revert to the Schlüsselgewalt. The basis of the Schlüsselgewalt, division of labor between men and women is inconsistent with the fact that contemporary husbands and wives co-manage the household. The Schlüsselgewalt binds spouses as joint debtors, and in practice it has been a free ride of the creditor, and it is discriminating the married partners, and it is also causing violations against the civil law doctrines. The Schlüsselgewalt is mistakenly used to interpretate and construct the rules of community debts, which violates the relativity of debt and the spirit of community property regime. The Austrian, Swedish, Scottish family law and Commission on European Family Law have either scrapped or changed the Schlüsselgewalt. The latest wave of the Civil Code codification in central and eastern Europe have not adopted the Schlüsselgewalt. Under the global trend of Schlüsselgewalt towarding to spousal authorization for legal transactions, the marriage and family law in the codifition of civil law may abandon the "following strategy" and shift to design new marital representation rules.