表見代理法則之比較研究

英國法表見代理建立在禁反言的理論基礎上，相反，美國法學會編撰之代理法重述採契約客觀理論，使表見授權成為一種真正的授權，然其未為實務所採。英美法上，代理權之限制為表見代理法則的當然內容，然於台灣民法而言存在爭議。台灣民法上，代表與代理相區分，然從以公司的名義對外締結契約的角度，二者均能作為公司的代理人，均應有代理權之限制不得對抗善意第三人之適用。公司內部決議效力瑕疵和對外效力，實為代理權之限制問題，應有表見代理法則之適用。在判斷第三人是否為善意的標準上，英美法上儘管有內部經營原則，2006年英國公司法s. 40，然其可能與表見代理法則衝突，第三人仍應負有形式上的查證義務，否則難謂其有正當信賴。可歸責於本人要件雖在英美法上未有明確規定，然其思想有所體現。民事代理中，本人的容忍行為可構成本人以自己之行為表示以代理權授與他人，成立表見代理；然公司董事會對未經正當程序委任之事實上董事、事实上經理人等對外以公司名義締結契約行為予以容忍的，或是對代理人逾越權限的行為事後多次予以承認的，可能構成默示的實際授權，從而成為有權代理。

關鍵字

表見代理；代理權之限制；代表與代理；可歸責於本人；禁反言；內部經營原則；容忍

並列摘要

The theoretical basis for apparent authority in the English Law is the estoppel doctrine, which is in contrast with the objective theory of contracts adopted by the American Law Institute. However, the U.S. courts choose to follow the estoppel doctrine. In the common law, we resolve the problem of the limitation of authority under the rule of apparent authority, however, that is not so clear in Taiwanese civil law. In Taiwanese civil law, the representative is not equal to the agent of the company. But, from the aspect of contracting with third parties for the benefits of the principal, it is difficult to see any difference between them. Most problems of apparent authority appear in the commercial organizations. Although the common law develops the indoor management rule to mitigate the constructive notice rule, and even though there exists s. 40 (2) (b) of the Companies Act 2006, the third party who knows or should know the act of the agent is beyond his authority cannot rely on apparent authority. Only if the appearance of authority is imputable to the principal, will the legal effects of the act done by the agent be attributed to him. The principal’s acquiescence could be a manifestation of assent to establish apparent authority, while when the board of directors acquiesce the unauthorized act of an agent, or that of the de-facto manager, the implied actual authority might probably apply.