The Research On The Acts On Negotiable Instruments On One's Behalf

The act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf as a special type of the agency for bill act bears no essential differences as its counterpart. On the appearance the signature requirement for the former is much more simple and convenient, which results in its popularity in the circulation of negotiable instrument. However, due to the lack of definite legislation stipulation and sufficient concern of scholars on this subject, conflicts and disputes happen quite often, which have played a negative effect on the normal order of settlements. In view of this, I made an intensive research on this issue from the perspective of the occurrence and the consequences of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf, as well as comparing it with some other related theories and demonstrating its features in order to complete the theoretical system on this subject.The thesis can be divided into four chapters: the introduction, the right, the methods, and the responsibility of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf in legal sense.In the first chapter, I introduce the definition of act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf by a case study. It can be encountered quite often in daily lives, especially for legal person and non-legal person organizations it is the foremost method used in the negotiable instruments circulation. In most cases, an accountant in a company or an organization is designated to act upon sealing on negotiable instruments. In addition, the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf is also a special type of the agency for bill act. The two shares some similarities out of the differences. On the appearance, the signature for the former is more simple and convenient, because the only required signature is the principal's while the record of agency sense or the actor's signature is not necessary; in the essence, they also share some resemblance, as both of them are for the benefit of the principal who, of course, should undertake the responsibility.In the second chapter, I describe the right to the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf in two aspects.On the one hand, I describe the right to the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf in terms of the scope and the capacity requirement of the principal and the actor, the authorization method, the content, as well as their legal relationship. In particular, the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf is applicable to all the actions concerning negotiable instruments. In another word, the drawer, the endorser, the acceptor and the payer can all be considered as the principal. The selection of the actor should be based upon full trust; therefore, it is commonly a company's accountant or an entrusted relative or friend of a natural person who will be assigned to be the actor. The principal should include not only the person with full capacity for civil, but the person with limited capacity for civil as well so long as his behavior is appropriate to his age, intelligence and his mental conditions; or the person who has his legal representative's permission should be accorded the recognition of his principal status. Different methods of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf should have different requirements for the capacity of the actor. If the authorization of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf is just like that of the agency for bill act, the actor should have full capacity or limited capacity. Otherwise, anyone that can make a signature will be the actor, even the incapacity. In addition, the common statutory authority is not applicable to the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf. Usually, principal will choose the entrusted authorization whose handwritten signature should be in black and white. And the power of attorney should participate in circulation with negotiable instruments as well. Thirdly, all of the contents on negotiable instruments could be filled out by the actor. And if the authorization of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf is just like that of the agency for bill act, the actor could have his own will up to limit of authorization. Fourthly, the relationship between the principal and the actor is single. The only relationship between them is the entrusted agency rather than the bill relationship, no matter before or after the acting behavior happens.One the other hand, I describe the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf without legal authorization. It is the actor that should assume the responsibility of providing evidence. Although this is on the contrary to the principle demonstrated in the civil procedure law, but it does conform to the legal principle of the negotiable instruments law, which protects the benefits of the bearer in a better way. As a general rule, the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf without legal authorization will be considered as the forgery of negotiable instruments. But if the actor acts in good faith, the principal can make the behavior valid by subsequent ratification. Besides, the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf by estoppel is an exception which is quite common in practice. Its theoretical foundation is"Rechtsscheinhagtung". According to the general situation, the actor is subjectively supposed to be the one that entrusted with the right of acting on negotiable instruments by the third party acting in good faith. In this case, the liability for negotiable instruments should be assumed by the principal. In the third chapter, I describe the methods of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf in four aspects. Firstly, the most significant feature of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf, namely the most obvious difference as agency for bill act, is that the only signature required on the negotiable instruments is the principal's. This feature makes the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf more convenient than the agency for bill act, while at the same time it may raise more risks. Secondly, as for the question whether the handwritten signature could be made by an agent, scholars have not reached a consensus yet. As far as I am concerned, the handwritten signature could be made by an agent, only if the actor has been legally authorized by the principal. Otherwise, it will play a negative effect on the efficiency and convenience of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf. What's worse, it will go against the will of the principal. Thirdly, whether the informal name could be used as a signature, in my opinion the answer is affirmative. One of the requirements for the signature is that it should have positive influence. If the informal name conforms to this requirement, its validation should be recognized as well. Fourthly, the signature of legal person is consisted of two parts: the seal of the legal person and the seal of its legal representative. In most cases, the actor is often an accountant of a company, while the principal is the legal person instead of the legal representative.In the fourth chapter, I describe the consequences of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf, which could be divided into three parts. Firstly, if the actor is legally authorized, the liability for negotiable instruments of his behavior should be assumed by the principal. Secondly, without legal authorization, if it conforms to the requirement of the act on negotiable instruments on one's behalf by estoppel, the liability for negotiable instruments is supposed to be assumed by the principal. And the actor should still be required to assume the civil liability in legal sense subsequently. Thirdly, if the behavior is considered as the forgery of negotiable instruments, the forger should definitely assume the liability.