票据表见代理研究

发布时间：2018-05-01 02:01

本文选题：票据表见代理 + 权利外观理论　；参考：《西南政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：票据所具有的支付、结算、信用、融资等多种经济功能使得其在商品经济社会中的作用日益突显。代理天然享有的扩张主体行为能力,弥补主体行为能力欠缺的优势使得商事主体在商品经济中获得了更多的交易机会。票据与代理相互结合,二者相得益彰:一方面使得票据的功能得到更大程度上的发挥;另一方面使得代理制度的优越性得到更大范围上的体现。然而,票据行为不同于一般的民事法律行为,其具有无因性、文义性以及要式性等特殊品质。票据代理如果没有考虑到票据行为的特殊性,不但不能使票据功能得到更好的发挥,反而会影响票据功能的实现。现行法没有对票据表见代理作出明文规定,但实践中又有关于票据行为适用表见代理的现实要求。针对这一问题,学界普遍认同票据行为可以直接适用民法中关于表见代理的相关条文。然而,如此不加分析的直接适用,则会囿于票据行为的特殊品质而产生难以解决的困境。本文从票据表见代理的基础理论出发,采用历史分析、实证分析以及价值分析方法,对票据表见代理的构成要件以及法律后果进行深入剖析,并对票据表见代理类推适用的边界予以论述。全文共分为四个部分。第一部分阐述了票据表见代理的基础理论,其内容包括票据表见代理的语义分析、理论基础、合理性分析以及票据法欠缺表见代理明文规定的困境。票据表见代理,是指行为人虽无票据行为代理权,但善意第三人客观上有充分理由相信其有代理权,而与之为票据行为,该票据行为的后果直接归属于本人的票据法律制度。票据表见代理的理论基础为权利外观理论,其为善意第三人信赖利益的保护提供了正当性基础。虽然我国票据法没有明文规定票据表见代理,但囿于票据行为注重权利外观以及表见代理制度有助于票据流通等原因,学界普遍认同票据行为适用民法中有关表见代理的规定。然而,票据行为具有无因性、文义性以及要式性等特殊品质,直接适用民法条文又会造成票据行为变相定性、法律适用困难以及善意第三人保护范围不明的困境。因此,仅承认票据表见代理不足以解决所有现实问题,还应当在票据法中将其予以明确规定。第二部分论述了票据表见代理的构成要件。理论上关于表见代理的构成要件存在单一要件说、双重要件说以及区别说。从促进票据流通,体现商法效率优先、全面涵盖表见代理发生情形以及顺应权利外观理论构成要件的客观趋势出发,本文赞同单一要件说。单一要件说又细分为主观要件与客观要件。此外,关于善意第三人范围是否涉及票据第三取得人的问题,一直是学界争议的焦点,故其成为本文研究的重难点。对此,理论界主要存在否定说、肯定说以及区别说。本文采用区别说的分析方法,连同直接相对人是否构成表见代理以及第三取得人善意与否一起考虑,来分析票据表见代理第三人范围问题。当直接相对人构成表见代理且第三取得人善意、直接相对人构成表见代理而第三取得人恶意以及直接相对人不构成表见代理而善意相对人善意时,票据第三取得人能够向被代理人主张票据权利。唯有直接相对人不构成表见代理且第三取得人恶意时,第三取得人不得要求被代理人承担票据责任。第三部分讨论了票据表见代理的法律后果。首先,对于直接相对人而言,票据表见代理成立后,其既可以向被代理人主张权利,也可以要求无权代理人承担责任。其次,对于第三取得人而言,当在直接相对人处成立表见代理时,因其能够继受取得直接相对人的票据权利,当然也就同样享有责任主体的选择权。而在直接相对人处不成立表见代理时,囿于权利外观理论保护善意第三人的初衷,善意第三取得人亦享有选择责任主体的权利。再次,对于被代理人而言,当其被选择成为责任主体后,若因此而遭受损失,则有权向无权代理人追偿。最后,对于无权代理人而言,当其承担票据责任后,则成为票据权利人。并且,本文还明确了被代理人与无权代理人的责任状态是竞合而非连带。第四部分分析了票据表见代理类推适用的边界。与票据表见代理类推适用相关联的问题是票据无权代行中的本人责任以及票据伪造中的被伪造人责任。由于票据代行中,本人不在票据上显名,因此学界把无权代理者以代行方式所为的票据行为解释为票据伪造。即票据无权代行之伪造属于票据伪造中的一种。对于票据无权代行之伪造是否成立表见代理,学界存在否定说、肯定说以及折衷说。本文同意折衷说,认为对于相对人来说,应当保护其信赖利益,但并非源于表见代理的类推适用,而是囿于权利外观理论对票据无权代行之伪造的适用。易言之,在票据伪造场合下,被伪造人一般无须承担票据责任,但若出现票据无权代行之伪造的情形,善意相对人有正当理由相信代行人享有代行权时,本人(被伪造人)应当承担票据责任,从而维护善意相对人的信赖利益。但此与表见代理类推适用无关,而是权利外观理论所致。
[Abstract]:Various economic functions such as payment, settlement, credit, financing and other economic functions of the bill make it more and more prominent in the economy and society of the commodity. The agent's natural ability to expand the main body of behavior, make up for the advantages of the lack of the main body's behavior, make the business subject get more trading opportunities in the commodity economy. In addition, the two parties complement each other: on the one hand, the function of the bill is brought into play in a greater degree; on the other hand, the superiority of the agency system is reflected in a wider range. However, the act of the bill is different from the general civil law, which has the special qualities such as the non cause, the meaning and the style. Considering the particularity of the bill behavior, it can not only make the function of the bill better, but will affect the realization of the bill function. The current law does not make clear provisions on the agency of the bill, but in practice there are some practical requirements on the agency in the application of the bill behavior. It is directly applicable to the relevant provisions of the apparent agency in civil law. However, the direct application of such non analysis will be constrained by the special quality of the act of negotiable instruments. This paper, starting with the basic theory of agency, uses historical analysis, empirical analysis and the method of value analysis to see the agency of the bill. The article analyzes the important elements and the legal consequences, and discusses the boundary of the application of the agency by analogy. The full text is divided into four parts.
The first part expounds the basic theory of the bill apparent agency, which includes the semantic analysis of the agent, the theoretical basis, the reasonableness analysis and the predicament stipulated by the agent in the absence of the bill law. It has the right of agency, and it is the act of bill. The consequence of the bill is directly attributable to the legal system of the bill. The theoretical basis of the negotiable instrument is the theory of the right appearance, which provides a justifiable basis for the protection of the trust interests of the third people in good faith. The act of bill pays attention to the appearance of rights and the reason that the agency system is helpful to the circulation of bills. The academic circles generally agree that the act of bill is applicable to the provisions of the agency in the civil law. However, the act of bill has the special qualities such as the non cause, the meaning and the type of the bill, and the direct application of the civil law will result in the change of the bill behavior. It is difficult to apply the law and the plight of the third people in good faith. Therefore, it is necessary to recognize that the bill is not enough to solve all the practical problems, and it should be clearly defined in the bill law.
The second part discusses the constituent elements of the bill representation agent. In theory, there are a single element theory, double essentials and distinction theory about the constitutive requirements of the apparent agency. It starts from the promotion of the circulation of the bill, the efficiency of the commercial law, the overall coverage of the appearance of the apparent agency and the objective trend of the conforming to the theory of the appearance theory of the right and the right to the right and the interest. This article agrees with the single element theory. The single element theory is also subdivided into subjective and objective elements. In addition, it has been the focus of the academic controversy about whether the third person in good faith covers the issue of third of the negotiable instruments, so it has become a difficult and difficult point in this study. Using the analytical method of the difference theory, together with whether the direct relative person constitutes the apparent agent and the third person's good faith or not, the paper analyzes the third person scope of the agent. When the direct relative person forms the table, the agent Qie Disan obtains the goodwill, the direct relative person constitutes the agent and third obtains the malicious and direct. When the relative person does not constitute a surrogate and a goodwill person in good faith, the negotiable instrument third can claim the right of the bill to the agent. Only when the direct relative does not constitute an apparent agency and the third has malice, the third person may not require the agent to bear the liability of the bill.
The third part discusses the legal consequences of the representation of the bill. First, for the direct relative, the bill can not only claim the right to the agent, but also require the unauthorized agent to take responsibility after the agency is established. Secondly, for the third person, when the agent is set up in the direct relative, it can be followed. The direct relative person's bill rights, of course, also enjoy the right to choose the subject of responsibility. When the direct relative is not set up to see the agent, it is limited by the right appearance theory to protect the original intention of the bona fide third party, and the good faith third also enjoys the right to choose the subject of responsibility. After being the subject of responsibility, if it suffers a loss, it has the right to recourse to the unauthorized agent. In the end, for the unauthorized agent, when it is responsible for the bill, it becomes the holder of the bill. Moreover, this article also makes it clear that the state of responsibility between the agent and the unauthorized agent is concurrence rather than joint and several.
The fourth part analyzes the boundary which is applicable to the proxy analogy in the bill table. The problem of the connection with the application of the proxy analogy with the bill table is the personal responsibility of the bill and the forgery of the forgery in the forgery of the bill. The action of a bill is interpreted as a forgery of a bill. That is, the forgery of a negotiable instrument is one of the forgery of a bill. There is a negative, affirmative and compromise in the academic circle for the forgery of the unauthorized representative of a negotiable instrument. The analogy of the agent is applicable, but limited to the forgery of the unauthorized substitution of the bill by the right appearance theory. In the case of forgery, the forgery generally does not have to bear the liability for the bill, but if the bill is not forged in the case of the forgery of the bill, the bona fide relative has justifiable reason to believe that the representative has the right to act on behalf of the person. A person should bear the responsibility of the bill, thereby maintaining the reliance interest of the bona fide counterpart. However, this is not related to the application of the apparent agency analogy, but the theory of the appearance of rights.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D922.287

【参考文献】