《合同法》第402条、第403条对仲裁协议效力问题的适用

Application of Article 402 and 403 of the Contract Law to the Validity of Arbitration Agreements

关于《合同法》第402条、第403条能否直接适用于仲裁条款,决定性因素在于如何界定这两个条文所规定代理的性质。综合多个方面的因素,我国《合同法》第402条的内容并未突破显名主义,而只是在显名的内容和方式上有所缓和。无论是显名内容的缓和,还是显名方式的缓和,所产生的均是直接代理的法律效果,代理人在授权范围内与交易相对人达成的仲裁协议条款可直接拘束于被代理人和交易相对人。以此为前提,仲裁协议条款在《合同法》第402条中具有完全适用的空间。而《合同法》第403条所规定的,在大陆法系的概念体系中,不过是债权让与和债务承担的特殊形态。既如此,在委托人行使介入权或第三人行使选择权时,仲裁条款作为整个合同权利义务的有机组成部分,也应当对债务人或委托人发生扩张的效力。

The decisive factor as to whether Article 402 and 403 of the Contract Law can be directly applied to arbitration agreement is the nature of the agency regulated in these two articles. Considering various factors, the content of Article 402 of the Contract Law of China does not break the "named principal" principle,but only eases the content and methods. Whether it is the easing of the content or the easing of the method,the resulting legal effect is the direct agency. The arbitration agreement reached by the agent within the scope of authorization can be directly binding on the principal and counterpart of the transaction. As a consequence, the arbitration agreement is effective in light of Article 402 of the Contract Law. Article 403 of the Contract Law, in the conceptual system of the civil law system, is only a special form of creditor’s right assignment and debt commitment. In this case, when the principal exercises the right of the agent against the third party or the third party select the principal as the contract party, the arbitration agreement as a part of the entire contractual rights and obligations shall also be effective to the debtor or the principal.