再論公司法定代表人越權擔保的法律效力

Re-discussing the Legal Effect of Ultra vires Guarantee by the Legal Representative of a Company

《公司法》第16條是對法定代表人代表權的法定限制，法定代表人的身份並不足以使相對人在與公司訂立擔保合同之時產生合理的信賴。未經適格的公司決議，法定代表人即無代表公司與相對人簽訂擔保合同的權限。相對人在與公司簽訂擔保合同時應對法定代表人的代表權限進行審查，相對人的善惡意取決於其是否對法定代表人的代表權限善盡審查義務。相對人的審查對象並不僅限於公司決議，還須結合公司章程及其他文件對公司決議是否適格進行判斷；其審查標準為''合理審查''，是一種審慎的形式審查。如果相對人未盡合理審查義務，其主觀上非為善意，未經公司追認，擔保合同對公司不發生效力。此時，公司既不承擔擔保責任，也不承擔締約過失責任。至於相對人的損失，由相對人與法定代表人按照過錯程度予以分擔。

"Article 16 of Company Law is a statutory limitation on the authority to represent of the legal representative to represent, which is not sufficient to create reasonable reliance by the counterparty at the time the company enters into a security contract with the counterparty. The act of the legal representative entering into a security contract with the counterparty in the name of the company without a proper corporate resolution constitutes an ultra vires representation. When entering into a security contract with the company, the counterparty shall examine the authority of the legal representative.The good or bad faith of the counterparty depends on whether it has exercised due diligence to review the legal representative’s authority to represent. The object of the review is not limited to the company’s resolution, but must also be combined with the company’s articles of association and other documents to determine whether the company’s resolution is appropriate; the standard of the review is ''reasonable review'', which is a prudent formal review. If the counterparty has not done a reasonable review, its subjective is non-good faith, the guarantee contract does not occur to the company without the company’s recognition. At this point, the company will not bear either the guarantee liability or the contractual negligence liability. As for the loss of the counterparty, the counterparty and the legal representative shall share it according to the degree of fault."