The Agent's Imputability In The Assignment Of Graduates

The forty-ninth clause of China's Contract Law determines the apparent agency.When the General Part Code of Civil Code of PRC is promulgated,it is continued.It faild to give a clear answer to whether the imputation requirement of the agent is a constituent element.In modern society,civil and commercial activities are all at risk.The significance of the apparent agency is to protect the legitimate interests of the opposite party and make the civil and commercial juristic acts in a stable and orderly state.But opponents believe that too much emphasis on relative person's trust interest and no consideration of the imputation of the agent will lead to the imbalance between the interests of the agent and the relative person.From the point of view of civil liability,it is not the basis of the claim that it is not to consider the imputation of the agent.In practice,the Supreme People's court has issued a guiding case,but China is not a case law country.The decisions of different courts decide whether to consider the imputable elements.This shows that there is still a need to be discussed in both theory and practice on the elements of imputability.Comparison of German law and French law,German scholars generally believe that the agent had been determined by the case accountability of the elements,is made from the aspect of civil liability protection of reliance interest;French Supreme Court "National Bank of Canada case out of civil liability protection,to develop independent civil liability system table the agency theory.In essence,the most obvious difference between the two lies in the imputability of the agent.There should be a justification for our country.to determine the elements of imputability.For example,from the point of view of the principle of distributive justice and fairness,the establishment of the elements of imputability are more consistent with the requirements of the measure of social value and the balance of interests.At the same time authorized the theory,China's current behavior is authorized to take the cause of the part is in the design for the basis of speaking,in order to ensure the stability of legislation,not authorized to take for to take a representative agent system,and authorized the first day itself is flawed.These drawbacks can be in apparent agency environment by determining the agent accountability requirements for.The establishment of apparent agency accountability is only the first step in trying to solve the problem,accountability requirements also need judgment standard,principle of cause in the interpretation of the problem on the basis of imputation,continue to introduce other imputation principle of fault and the principle of risk,its contents continuously cross,gradually lose their independent value.The principle of fault is mainly based on the intention or fault of the agent.However,when the agent is not intentional or negligent,he still uses fault attribution,which does not have a reasonable legal basis,and its ability to protect the relative person is limited.And through the risk principle of the attribution of the risk field,the analysis of who opened the risk? Who is more likely to control the risk? Who makes a profit? Through analysis,it is determined that after judging the imputability by risk principle,we can find specific problems.When there is a controversy about the scope of the unclear authorization or the scope of agency right,we cannot directly apply the agency by estoppel,that is,the apparent agency should have a specific identification path.It is not difficult to see the type of the agency system in our country.It is not difficult to see that it is only carried out around the authorization,so it should be the same in the specific identification.Determining the imputability and judgement of the agent,in order not to make the right imbalance,we must also reasonably limit the liability,and restrict the application of the elements of liability attributable from the perspective of the agent,from the right appearance and reasonable trust.