On The Performance Responsibilities Of Unauthorized Agents In China’s Unauthorized Agency

The agency system is a modern legal system arising from the development of commodity economy and plays a very important role in modern society.The function of the system is reflected in two aspects: one is the expansion of civil capacity;Supplement of the civil capacity of the parties.Based on the value conflict and balance between the meaning autonomy,trust protection and transaction security,Both the civil law system and the common law system have stipulated the liability problem of the unauthorized agent.From the perspective of comparative law,there are two typical legislative models of the responsibility of unauthorized agents.One is the selection responsibility and the liability of reliance interest which are different from the other by distinguishing whether the unauthorized agent knows the information or whether he is liable for damages.The other is represented by Switzerland,which makes the unauthorized agent assume the liability for damages of trust interests on the basis of determining the invalidity of the contract.The article 171(3)of the general provisions of the civil law of China mainly follows the article 179(1)and(2)of the German civil code.This paper mainly discusses the performance responsibility undertaken by the unauthorized agent,Therefore,this article mainly discusses the four aspects of the clarification of the functional value of the performance of the responsibility,the constituent elements,the cause of obstruction,the relationship between the performance of the responsibility and the liability for damages.The first part of the article mainly discusses the functional value of performing responsibility.This chapter starts from the disputes in which academic circles stipulate performance obligations at the beginning of legislation,analyzes and discusses different viewpoints on whether academic institutions should stipulate performance obligations.This chapter summarizes the judicial cases and the academic viewpoints,and points out that the system value of the unauthorized agent assuming the responsibility lies in that it can effectively make up for the deficiency of the remedy of the liability for damages and is conducive to reducing the burden of proof of the counterpart.The second part of the article clarifies the constituent elements of the agent’s responsibility for performance,and defines the behavior that can be performed on behalf of the agent.First,the behavior is agentable.When the behavior has a high degree of personal attributes,the parties must not negotiate,and the legal behavior The requirement must be implemented by myself and in other circumstances as required by law,and the act must not be represented at this time.This legal act should also be transferable,and there should be a certain range of limitations.The performance of debts should include simple acts of burden,acts with both burdens and sanctions,and acts of forming debts with the exercise of the right of formation.At the same time,the legal act should also be able to be transferred without affecting the rights and interests of the counterparty,and there should be no other flaws in effectiveness.Only when the legal act satisfies the above requirements and the principal has not ratified it,can the counterparty require him to perform his obligations.In the principle of imputation,this chapter clearly clarifies the principle of statutory guarantee liability.The third part of the article mainly summarizes the reasons for the obstruction of the performance of the unauthorized agent’s responsibility.When an agent without authority is a person with no capacity for civil conduct,he cannot engage in the act of agency,and the person with limited capacity for civil conduct can engage in the act of agency,but shall only be liable for damages and shall not be liable for performance.However,when the act is consistent with its age,intelligence,and mental state or is ratified by a legal agent,the person with limited capacity for civil conduct shall assume responsibility for performance at this time.When the agent is unable to perform,the non-authorized agent is not required to bear the performance responsibility,but the burden of proof is assumed by the counterparty.When the agent does not know that he has no right to act,he should not bear the responsibility to perform,otherwise it will cause the same heavy responsibility as the agent who knows that he still does the act without agency.Therefore,only unauthorised agents are excluded if they do not know their unauthorised representation.The fourth part of the article clarifies the relationship between performance and liability for damages.The responsibility model should be a debt of choice,not a choice of competition.After the counterparty chooses an unauthorised agent to assume the debts for performance,it can no longer turn to the other party to claim liability for damages,and at the same time clarify the liability for damages for performance and performance.When the counterparty is subjectively in good faith,the actor may be required to bear the liability for damages for performance of performance or performance benefits,but the burden of liability should not exceed the benefits that the counterparty can obtain when it is ratified by the agent.