公司越权担保合同效力判定的法律适用分析

Analysis on the Application of Law About the Determination of Guaranty Contract Validity with Company’s Exceeding Authority

《中华人民共和国公司法》第16条法律后果要件的缺失,使得公司法定代表人或者其他人员违反该条而为公司越权担保合同对公司效力处于不确定状态。第16条仅是关于公司担保决议形成的规定,是公司担保意思的形成机制,违反只会直接影响公司担保决议的效力,不会直接影响担保合同效力。故其不能作为判定公司越权担保合同效力的直接法律依据。由于公司法定代表人或者其他人员对外表达的担保意思并非公司意思,其行为构成越权代表或者代理。此类合同效力的判定应依据《中华人民共和国民法总则》《中华人民共和国合同法》有关表见代表或者代理以及无权代理的法律规范。而是否构成表见代理或者代表,关键要看担保合同相对人是否履行了对担保公司的相关章程条款和担保决议的形式审查义务;在公司其他人员越权担保时,相对人还需审查公司其他人员有无法定代表人的担保授权。

The deficiency of legal consequence and ingredients in the 16th article of Company Law of PRC makes it uncertain about the validity of a guaranty contract if legal representative or other staff violated the article, exceeding the authority and reaching a guaranty contract. The 16th article only stipulates the formation of guaranteed decision for a company, and its system, violating which could only directly affect the validity of company’s guaranteed resolution instead of the validity of guaranty contract. Therefore, it cannot be considered a direct legal basis for determining the guaranty contract validity of company’s exceeding authority. Because the guarantee of company’s legal representative or other staff can only be their own behalf instead of the company’s, the act constitutes exceeding authority. The determination of this type of contracts should be based on legal norms related to apparent representative, agency and unlawful agency in the Civil Law and Company Law of PRC. Whether an act constitutes superficial agency or representative depends on if the counterpart of the guaranty contract completed the obligation of a formal examination of the related provisions of guaranteed company and guaranteed resolution;when other staff of a company makes a guarantee exceeding the authority, counterpart need to examine whether the staff is authorized by legal representative.