论越权代表行为的效果归属与责任承担——以法释[2023]13号第20条为中心

On the Attribution of Effects and Liability for Acts of Ultra vires Representation --Centred on Article 20 of the Judicial Interpretation[2023]No.13

法释[2023]13号第20条以“代表权限制说”作为解释基础,对越权代表行为的裁判规则予以类型化规定。针对超越代表权法定限制的行为,引入了相对人合理审查义务。相对人未尽合理审查义务,越权代表合同并非当然无效,而是效果归属待定。经法人追认后,合同始发生效力,其法律效果归属于法人。若法人不予追认,该合同的法律效果不归属于法人,法人脱逸出合同当事人的身份,无需承担合同责任。法人因过错构成侵权的,应适用《民法典》第1165条。针对超越代表权约定限制的行为,原则上适用《民法典》第61条第3款,合同的法律效果归属于法人,除非法人能证明相对人订立越权代表合同确非善意;法人是否应当承担违约责任,有待在效果归属和效力判断的基础之上结合违约情形予以认定。相对人非为善意时,应类推适用《民法典》第171条无权代理规则判定各方主体的过错与责任。

Article 20 of the judicial Interpretation[2023]No.13 takes the"limitation of representation"as the basis of interpretation,and provides a typology of rules for adjudicating acts of ultra vires representation.The objective criterion of the obligation of reasonable examination by the counterparty has been introduced for acts exceeding the statutory limitations on the right of representation.The content of reasonable examination by the counterparty includes both a lawful review of the formal elements of the authorisation and a logical review of the appropriateness of the content of the authorisation.If the counterparty fails to fulfill the obligation of reasonable examination,the legal effect of the contract of ultra vires representation is not attributed to the legal person.However,the contract is not ipso facto null and void,but its validity is pending.The contract becomes effective only after the legal person recognizes it.If not,the legal effects of the contract are not attributable to the legal person.The legal person escapes from being a party to the contract and is not liable under the contract.If the legal person is indeed at fault for the infringement,Article 157 of the Civil Law shall not be applied,but rather article 1165 of the Civil Law.In principle,the provisions of Article 61(3)of the Civil Law shall be applied to acts that exceed the agreed limitations on the right of representation,and the legal effect of the contract shall be attributed to the legal person,unless the legal person can prove that the counterparty did not enter into the contract of ultra vires representation in good faith.However,whether the legal person is liable for breach of contract is to be determined on the basis of the attribution of effect and judgement of validity,taking into account the circumstances of the breach.If the counterparty is not in good faith,the rules of the Civil Law,Article 171,on unauthorised agency shall be applied by analogy to determine the fault and responsibility of each subject.