Analysis Of The Implied Authority Case Of Sanming Institute V. Fengfan Company And Daqing Gas Station

The sixty-sixth article third of China’s "general principles of civil law"provisions that the one who know others in his or her name act a civil legal action butdid not denied, as agreed to. As the article only provided the unique commonminimum requirements of implied authority and tolerance a gent, so it can beinterpreted as the implied authority, and also can be interpreted as tolerance agent.Which lead to the judgment in our country’s judicial practice often lack sufficientpropriety when face the specific cases, investigate the reason is t hat it did not addedenough elements for the explanation. In fact, there are more sufficient reasons for theexplanation of implied authority which took place under the type of ostensible agency.The case quoted by this thesis indicated that it is a realit y existence in the civil lawtheories of the implied authority, and there is specific value of its existence. As anon-contracting parties, Daqing gas station involved in performance of the contract.Plaintiff claims that the legal consequences should be response by Fengfan Companyand Daqing gas station, the defendant ask them to bear the liability because thatDaqing gas station is not a party to the contract as well as the plaintiff failed toperform, therefore, formatting the contract litigation to the court. The People’s Courtjudged that the legal consequences of Daqing gas station’s acting should be responseby Fengfan Company after the cognizance, but lack of sufficient appropriateness inthe statement of reasons in the judgment. One point of contention is that who shallassume the legal consequences the agent behavior of Daqing gas station; the otherpoint of contention is which one should be interpreted of the sixty-sixth article thirdof China’s "general principles of civil law", should be interpreted to Implied authorityas one type of Ostensible agency, or should be interpreted to Tolerance agent? Againstthis two controversial points, make an analysis of the reason of identified and thetheoretical roots, Provided some immature insights for the use of judicial practice andimprove on the legislation.To the implied authority type of contract, on the one hand,there is no express provision to be provided in our civil legislation system, only beexpressed in general terms in the sixty-sixth article third of China’s "generalprinciples of civil law". Defined later promulgated the "Contract Law" provisions onthe agent system only sees the agency, but no specific type involving impliedauthority requirements. In judicial practice, the implied authority t ype of contract is not uncommon, this can result in the administration of justice uncertainty. On theother hand, from the point of view of legal theory research, the one who know othersin his or her name act a civil legal action but did not denied is not to repudiate,Chinese scholars and experts involved in the theoretical study of the agency and thislack of unified insights and understanding, often alluded to. They often identified it astolerated agent formulation in extraterritorial theoretical research. Therefore, whenthe judge or arbitrator deal with such disputes, they always have no explicit idea.Therefore, the civil law theory circle and practice circle in our country must to dosomething more before make it clear and perfect in the legislation in the future.