Research On The Unauthorized Agent's Liability To The Third Party In Good Faith

Unauthorized agent's liability to the third party in good faith is not a new problem,but it is the problem which lacks of legislation,judicial and research in our country.The situation of insufficient supply of the "General Principles of Civil Law"and "Contract Law" has changed after the passage of the General Provisions of the Civil Code,but neither the legislative nor the explanatory doctrines have been discussed.The first part of this article from the point of the law,by examining the "General Principles of Civil Law" under the judicial practice,puts forward that the unauthorized agent's liability to the third party is not uniform.The root of the problem lies in the lack of institutional supply of legislation,but also ignoring the fundamental question of the nature of the unauthorized agent's liability.Although the"General of the Civil Code "provides more detailed provisions,but it still has to be clarified.The second and the third part are based on the discussion of legislation,and from the determination of the nature of the unauthorized agent's liability,the author analyzes the liability form and the scope of liability of the unauthorized agent.Because of the shortcomings of the existing theory of the nature of the unauthorized agent's liability,this article advocates the type of unauthorized agent,to consider the nature of their liabilities respectively.Whether or not the unauthorized agent is in good faith is determined in the judgment of the nature of liability.Unauthorized agent in no good faith should bear the tort liability,and that in good faith should bear the legal special liability.So unauthorized agent in no good faith shall bear the form of liability for damages.The liability to fulfill the form of debt is not necessary,and there are many drawbacks,so it should be excluded.The scope of liability should be based on the rules of tort law,but should not be restricted by the breach of contract terms.A goodwill agent shall be liable only for the form of liability for damages,and the scope of liability shall be limited to the reasonable costs of making the contractual expenses and shall be limited to the performance profits.The fourth part is based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the General Provisions of the Civil Code.The fourth part focuses on the relationship between the claims of Article 171(3)and the other provisions.In relation to Article 173 paragraph 3,and paragraph 2,it shall be deemed that there is no right for the agent to claim after the exercise of the right of revocation.In relation to Article 117,paragraph 3,and Article 172,it shall be deemed that in the case of the establishment of an agency by estoppel,the relative person shall be allowed to claim that he is entitled to claim the unauthorized agent's liability if giving up the effect of the agency by estoppel.At the same time,the words "goodwill" in article 171,paragraph 3,should be interpreted as unknown and should not be known,and for the relative person who knows or ought to know the circumstance,the provisions of paragraph 4 are commendable.The fifth part concerns the question of subagency,and the explanation of Article 169(3)of the General Provisions of the Civil Code becomes the center on this issue.The principal of claim of 169(3)is a relative person and does not exclude the application of article 171,paragraph 3.Article 169,paragraph 3,shall be applied in a manner due to the lack of legal norms.In the absence of the legal form of liability and the scope of compensation for the principal agent,article 171,paragraph 3,should be applied.After interpretation,Article 169,paragraph 3 can be a good completion.