票据无权代理与越权代理规制模式的反思与重构

Reflection and Reconstruction of the Regulatory Model of Unauthorized Agency and Ultra Vires Agency of Bills

对票据无权代理与越权代理的规制,域外法主要存在二元模式和统一模式,而我国《票据法》第5条第2款采取新二元模式。但此三种规制模式均有一定的缺陷,相关学说调整亦有内在的逻辑障碍。在《民法典》视阈下,票据无权代理不应有狭义无权代理和越权代理之细分,宜将两者一体构造为票据表见代理,从新二元模式转型为新统一模式,由本人而非代理人承担票据责任。票据表见代理的解释论仍须扎根票据行为的要式性、文义性、独立性和无因性等基本原理,故而票据表见代理所保护的第三人仅限于直接相对人,票据表见代理可类推适用于为组织的票据无权代行、票据无权代表,但不得适用于或类推适用于票据伪造。

In terms of the regulation of unauthorized agency of negotiable instruments and ultra vires agency of negotiable instruments,the dualistic model and the unified model are the main adoptions in foreign laws,while the new dualistic model is adopted in China,according to Article 5(2)of the Negotiable Instruments Law.However,these three regulatory models have certain defects,and relevant theoretical adjustments have inherent logical obstacles.Under the perspective of the Civil Code,there should be no distinction of unauthorized agency of negotiable instruments between the narrow unauthorized agency and the ultra vires agency,and to achieve the transformation from the new dualistic model to the new unified model,unauthorized agency of negotiable instruments and ultra vires agency of negotiable instruments should be integrated into the agency by estoppel of negotiable instruments,with the principal not the agent bearing the liability of the bill.To understand and apply agency by estoppel of negotiable instruments,its explanation still needs to be rooted in the basic principles of the bill behavior,in the ways of formality,literalness,independence and abstract nature.Therefore,the third party protected by the agency by estoppel of negotiable instruments is only the direct counterpart.The agency by estoppel of negotiable instruments can be applied by analogy to the negotiable instruments of an organization without authorized representative and the negotiable instruments of an organization without the right to exercise,but it cannot be applied or applied by analogy to the negotiable instruments forgery.