论表见代理中的被代理人可归责性--兼谈《民法典》语境下对被代理人的救济

On the Imputability of the Principal in Apparent Agency—Also on the Remedy to the Principal under the Context of the Civil Code

《中华人民共和国民法典》第一百七十二条沿袭了《中华人民共和国合同法》第四十九条的表述,未将被代理人的可归责性作为表见代理的构成要件,但理论与实务上关于被代理人可归责性的争议并未因此平息。通过案例统计与个案研究,结合比较法经验,在现行法框架下,被代理人的可归责性无须单独作为表见代理的构成要件。但基于平衡善意相对人与被代理人利益的考量,尚需根据风险原则对可归责性的内涵进行界定,通过案例指导制度规定两种表见代理的例外情形:一是无关行为人伪造权利证明文件,二是权利证明文件被盗或者遗失、代理关系终止后,被代理人虽进行合理公告,但公告范围有限,相对人有证据证明其确不知公告。

Article 172 of Civil Code of the People's Republic of China follows the formulation of Article 49 of Contract Law of People's Republic of China,which does not regard the imputability of the principal as a form of elements of apparent agency,but the dispute between theory and judicial practice has not been settled by this.Through case statistics and case studies,combining with comparative law experience,under the the Context of the Civil Code,the imputability does not need to be a form of elements of apparent agency.However,in order to balance the interests of the bona fide counterpart and the principal,it is still necessary to define the connotation of imputability based on the risk principle.Through the case guidance system,there are two situations that should be stipulated as exception for apparent agency:the first is the falsification of proxy documents by unrelated actors;the second is,although the principal makes a reasonable announcement after the proxy documents are stolen or lost,or the authority is terminated,the scope of the announcement is limited,and the counterpart has evidence to prove that he is indeed unaware of it.