公司担保:越权代表路径解释

Corporate Guarantee:Interpretation of the Ultra Vires Representative Path

由于《公司法》第16条规范性质认定不明,导致司法裁判出现“同案不同判”的现象。法院在认定公司行为构成越权代表后,将相对人是否尽到审查义务作为判断其善意与否的依据并据此认定担保合同是否对公司发生效力,改变了以往担保合同有效和无效的裁判二分法。在越权代表路径下的责任承担方面,相对人非善意,由相对人和法定代表人依各自过错分担责任。对相对人审查义务的逐渐细化有助于扫清司法裁判过程中的路径障碍,从而类型化分析与解决担保合同效力问题,完善公司治理。

Due to the unclear determination of the normative nature of Article 16 of the Company Law,there has been a phenomenon of'different judgments in the same case"in judicial decisions.After determining that the company's act constitutes an ultra vires representative,the court takes whether the counterpart has performed the duty of review as the basis for judging its good faith and accordingly determines whether the guarantee contract is effective for the company,changing the dichotomy between the validity and invalidity of the previous guarantee contract.In terms of assuming responsibility under the path of ultra vires representation,if the relative party is not in good faith,the relative party and the legal representative will share the responsibility based on their respective faults.While refining the review obligation of the counterpart,we should clear up the path obstacles in the process of judicial adjudication,analyze and solve the effectiveness of guarantee contracts in a typological manner,so as to improve corporate governance.