日常家事代理之批判

Criticism on 'Schlilsselgewalt'

主張民法典回歸日常家事代理的觀點並不可取。日常家事代理以家庭主婦婚姻模式為基礎，有違當代雙薪夫妻共同管理家務之現狀。日常家事代理將夫妻強制綑綁為連帶債務人，在實踐中已淪為債權人的 “便車”，對婚姻有歧視之虞，亦帶來民法教義上的“違和”。日常家事代理被錯誤地用來解釋和建構夫妻共同債務規則，其既違反了債的相對性，又悖於夫妻共同財產制精神。奧地利、瑞典、蘇格蘭和歐洲家庭法協會均對其或廢或改。最新一波中東歐民法典編纂浪潮均未繼受日常家事代理。在日常家事代理走向委託代理家事的趨勢下，鑒於我國不存在日常家事代理的歷史接力，未來民法典婚姻家庭編大可放棄“跟隨戰略”，轉而設計全新的家事委託代理規則。

It is not advisable to advocate that the civil code should revert to the Schlilsselgewalt. The basis of the Schlusselgewalt, division of labor between men and women is inconsistent with the fact that contemporary husbands and wives co-manage the household. The Schlusselgewalt binds spouses as joint debtors, and in practice it has been a free ride of the creditor, and it is discriminating the married partners, and it is also causing violations against the civil law doctrines. The Schlusselgewalt is mistakenly used to interpretate and construct the rules of community debts, which violates the relativity of debt and the spirit of community property regime. The Austrian, Swedish, Scottish family law and Commission on European Family Law have either scrapped or changed the Schlusselgewalt. The latest wave of the Civil Code codification in central and eastern Europe have not adopted the Schlusselgewalt. Under the global trend of Schlusselgewalt towarding to spousal authorization for legal transactions, the marriage and family law in the codifition of civil law may abandon the 'following strategy' and shift to design new marital representation rules.