论商事职务代理的代理权来源

The Source of Proxy in Connection with Commercial Agency in Duty

对于商事职务代理中的代理权来源,学界存在着相当大的分歧,司法实践也因此而裁判不一。仅依据“代理权分离于其基础法律关系”这一既有理论,尚不能为商事职务代理权的来源提供最终答案。在商事组织法思维的介入下,结合职务代理的独立发展轨迹及其背后逻辑,可以得出“职务代理权的本源实为规范授权”这一结论。在我国《民法典》的语境下,规范授予职务代理权的模式同样存在,法定代表人制度便是典型例证。借助于商事习惯的法律漏洞填补功能,《民法典》第170条可以在解释论上获得实现差异化授予职务代理权权限的立法效果。

The source of proxy in connection with commercial agency in duty is subject to different understandings in academic circles and brings controversies in judicial practice. If only relying on the established theory that “proxy is separate from its underlying legal relationship”, it is not possible to provide a final answer to the source of proxy in connection with commercial agency in duty. In the perspective of the intervention of the commercial law as well as the independent development trajectory of agency in duty and its underlying logic, we can conclude that “the origin of agency in duty is actually the authorization of norms”. In the context of The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, the model of normative delegation of agency in duty also exists, and the legal representative system is a typical example. By virtue of the legal loophole-filling function of commercial customs and in the interpretative perspective, Article 170 of The Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China can also achieve the legal effect of differential delegations of agency in duty.