“表见代表”之虚与实

On the Real or False“Apparent Legal Representation”

受日本商法上表见代表董事制度和原《合同法》条文编排之影响,主流观点将《民法典》第五百零四条和《民法典》第六十一条第三款解读为“表见代表”,但真正的表见代表是相对人对代表人的身份发生认识错误,主要因登记不实和无权代表人伪称而引起,实乃表见代理法理。相反,相对人很难对代表人之概括代表权发生认识错误,在代表人违反对其权限的非法定限制时,相对人对这些限制的简单知情并不属恶意。区分表见代表与经理权规则具有重要的意义。

Due to a misunderstanding on the apparent managing administrator in Japanese commercial law,the majority doctrine has interpreted the article 504 of Civil Code and the article 61 of Civil Code as apparent legal representation.This interpretation is also influenced by the structure of the ex-Contract Law.However,the true legal representation is induced by a mistake on the legal representative’s identity.For example,an incorrect registration or the apparent representative’s holding is an application of the theory of apparent authority.In contrast,it is difficult for the third party to have a misunderstanding on the legal representative’s power.If the legal representative deals with a third party in exceeding any non-legal limitation on his power,the third party is not to be regarded as acting in bad faith for his simple knowledge of this limitation.It’s essential to make a distinction between apparent legal representation and Prokura.