The Analysis About The Acts On Negotiable Instruments On One's Behalf

Because the civil law theory has not stipulated to the act on one's behalf,the acts on negotiable instruments on one's behalf theory of behavior explainextremely rare even among the theory in commercial law. Meanwhile, in theactual life this kind of behavior that agents make some acts on negotiableinstruments for principals can be found everywhere. Then formed such aconflict, that the offering of the theory can't meet the demand for the theory inpractice. In view of this condition, I start with comparing the acts onnegotiable instruments on one's behalf with the similar acts. In the form ofcase analysis, I distinguished the acts on negotiable instruments on one'sbehalf and then constructed my own theoretical system.This paper is divided into three chapters: the analysis about the formationof the acts on negotiable instruments on one's behalf, the analysis about thecharacteristics of the acts on negotiable instruments on one's behalf, and theanalysis about the questions on the acts on negotiable instruments on one'sbehalf by estoppel.In the first chapter, we start with one of the legal precedents from theSupreme Court in Japan that one person acted on negotiable instruments withother's name. Because these two kinds of behaviors are both recordedprincipal's signature on the negotiable instruments by agent, and the agent'ssignature doesn't appear directly on the negotiable instruments, the very greatone exists similarly on the external characteristic. But from the analysis abouttwo major aspects on requirements of the form and the essence, we will findtheir difference in the formation. This is the focal point in this chapter.Firstly, because the both acts only have principal's signature on thenegotiable instruments, this is the only requirement of the form on thenegotiable instruments; this part concentrates on the way to sign and therestriction on stamped signature range. No matter what is endorsed on thenegotiable instruments all represents the actor himself in use other's name toact on negotiable instruments, he has no vesting of right, so the way and rangeof stamped signature are unrestricted. In the acts on negotiable instruments onone's behalf, the value of handwritten signature is questioned. Some scholarsthink that handwritten signature emphasizes the affirmation of obligationsubject. The purpose is to protect the trade security, so we can't usehandwritten signature in this. But I think, if the actor has the vesting of right,his work will stand for principal's will. If deny simply, we will strangle themarrow of acts on one's behalf. So the effect of handwritten signature shouldbe acknowledged. Meanwhile, because the actor has the vesting of right, andthe stamped signature must stand out whom the principal is. The stampedsignature must be a true principal's name, which accords with the law.Whether the byname can have legal effect, I think if it can make the personsaround know by inferring out the principal's real identity, we can use it in this.This reflects the suitability and flexibility of the law. Secondly, in the field of essence requirements, the actor works for theprincipal, so on the negotiable instruments there must have some recordsindicate such relationship and the agent must have the principal's vesting ofright. It also stands out that sometimes the actor just does what the principalwants to. So the agent can have no his own full capacity. From two parts of above, we know the differences from the acts onnegotiable instruments on one's behalf and the act with other's name, andknow the requirements of it. In the second chapter, we come to research on the characters of the actson negotiable instruments on one's behalf. Someone thinks that the recruitingact on blank negotiable instruments is one kind of agency acts. But thebehaviors in recruiting act on blank negotiable instruments and the acts onnegotiable instruments on one's behalf are alike. From the comparison of theprincipal and actor's interrelationship, the primitive principal's and the actor'sidentity, the range and way of the right enforcement, the authorized foundationand the content, the legal relation and the responsibility while exercising areborn, it pays the characteristics of the recruiting act on inchoate instrumentbehavior for us to distinguish. And then, we can find differences between the acts on negotiableinstruments on one's behalf and the agency of acts on negotiable instruments.They reflect in the following several aspects. There is no actor's own stampedsignature and no will of act for the principal; the actor can be full capacitypeople and limited disposing capacity people, agent mechanically transmitsprincipal's will; the vesting of right comes from the official agential act more,it can be got not only in written form but also in oral form; there is no conceptof having no right to act on one's behalf and going beyond one's commissionact on one's behalf, if it really presents this kind of behavior for the pedestrian :if the act can meet the demands of the acts on negotiable instruments on one'sbehalf by estoppel, the principal will undertaken responsibility, if not, it willbe the acts of forgery of a negotiable instrument , and the actor will undertakenthe responsibility outside the note.