试论公司担保中的无权代理——基于裁判分歧的展开和分析

公司为他人提供担保的意思表示可以由法定代表人或者代理人作出。《公司法》第16条既是对法定代表人代表权限的法定限制，也是对代理人代理权限的法定限制。如此，担保代理权的外观就包括公司担保决议与代理权授予行为。代理人无权代理，以公司名义与相对人订立担保合同，未经公司以适格的公司担保决议追认，担保合同对公司不发生效力，不管担保合同是否有效，其法律后果均不由公司承受。此时，相对人知道或者应当知道代理人无代理权，在主观上应属恶意，仅得向有过错的无权代理人主张损害赔偿请求权。法定代表人越权代表的法律后果应类推适用《民法典》第171条无权代理规则，公司享有追认与否的选择权。公司选择追认的，担保合同的法律后果由公司承受；公司拒绝追认的，公司不承担担保责任，由公司法定代表人和相对人按照各自的过错分担相对人所受损失。

On Unauthorized Agency in Company Guarantee: Based on the Analysis of Divergences in Judicial Decisions

The company's intention to provide guarantee for others can be made by the legal representative or an agent. Article 16 of Company Law is not only a legal restriction on the authority of the legal representative, but also a legal restriction on the authority of the agent. In this way, the appearance of the security agency right includes the company's security resolution and the granting of the agency right. The agent has no right to enter into a guarantee contract with the opposite party in the name of the company. Without the ratification of the company with a qualified company guarantee resolution, the guarantee contract will not be effective for the company. No matter whether the guarantee contract is effective or not, the legal consequences will not be borne by the company. At this time, the opposite party who knows or should know that the agent has no agency right will be considered malicious and can only claim damages from the unauthorized agent. The legal consequences of the legal representative's ultra vires representative should be applied by analogy to the rule of unauthorized agency in article 171 of the Civil Code, and the company has the right to choose whether to ratify or not. If the company chooses to ratify, the legal consequences of the guarantee contract shall be borne by the company. If the company refuses to ratify, the company shall not bear the guarantee liability, and the legal representative of the company and the opposite party shall share the loss of the opposite party according to their respective faults.