摘要
在实践中,即使公司担保行为无效,公司仍然普遍须承担实质上类似有效担保的责任。这一不合理现象的原因在于法院对过错的不当界定乃至强加。以过错为线索,可以区分担保无效责任在性质和主体上的不同层次。在性质上,当担保合同自身无效时,公司承担缔约过失责任;在担保合同因主合同无效而无效时,公司只承担故意侵权责任。在主体上,行为归属要先于过错判断,当代表人行为可约束公司时,公司承担责任;否则由代表人自行承担责任,公司无须承担替代责任。责任主体的区分会进一步导致担保行为"无效"和"不生效力"的区分。性质和主体的区分会相应校正担保无效责任的范围,并排除追偿权。唯有使公司担保无效责任回归一般体系,才能避免过度强调或者不当忽略公司担保的特殊性。
In practice, where the guarantee is invalid, the corporation should always take responsibility which has the similar nature as the valid guarantee. The reason of this unreasonable situation is the inappropriate standard of the fault. In fact, the liability of invalid guarantee contains different levels about the nature and the responsible parties. As regards the nature, the corporation should take the pre-contractual liability when the guarantee is invalid, and the tort liability when the invalidity comes from the main contract. As regards the responsible parties, the ascription of the transaction should be judged before that of the fault. If the transaction is effective against the corporations, then the corporations are responsible;otherwise, the unauthorized agent should take the responsibility itself. The separation between the responsible parties would result the more accurate division between the invalidity and the ineffectiveness. The separation of the nature and the responsible parties would also adjust the scope of the liability and exclude the recourse. The return of the corporate liability to the general system, could avoid the excessive stress or inappropriate neglect of the particularity of the corporate guarantee.
出处
《法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2022年第2期103-117,共15页
Law Science
基金
中央财经大学2020年青年教师发展基金项目(编号:QJJ2002)资助。
关键词
公司担保
行为无效
责任性质
行为归属
表见代表
corporate guarantee
invalidity
the nature of responsibility
the ascription of the transaction
the apparent authority
