越權代表的“意思與表示不一致”理論

越權代表行為類推適用代理規定會使《民法典》第61條第2、3款之間出現衝突。解釋越權代表行為需要考慮實定法基礎。就此而言，類推適用代理規定應予否定。而司法解釋的做法，有值得肯定的一面，但在理論上需要進一步解釋代表行為的效力發生機制。法理上，應當嚴格區分代表與代理，在此基礎上，跳出現有觀念營造的思維定式，摒棄所謂代表行為為法人行為即均應對法人發生效力的觀念，認定法定代表人越權在相對人非善意時會導致法人的意思與表示不一致，違反法人真實意思。據此，一方面，越權代表（法律）行為可在法人對抗非善意相對人之後對其不發生效力；另一方面，法人仍須承受越權代表行為不發生效力後的法律後果。如此解釋既能避免法律衝突，又能做到公平合理，實現法理自洽。

Analogical application of the agency provisions to ultra vires representative acts would create a conflict between Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 61 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China. The interpretation of ultra vires representation must be grounded in positive law; from this perspective, analogical application of the agency provisions should be rejected. Although the current judicial interpretation contains praiseworthy elements, it nevertheless requires further theoretical clarification of the mechanism by which the legal effects of representative acts are generated. Jurisprudentially, a strict distinction must be drawn between representation and agency. On this basis, it is necessary to break free from the mindset shaped by existing conceptions that all representative acts are automatically attributable to the legal person represented. Where a legal representative acts beyond his or her authority and the counterparty is not in good faith, such conduct results in a discrepancy between the legal person's actual intent and the external manifestation of will, thereby violating the legal person's genuine intention. Consequently, on the one hand, an ultra vires representative (legal) act does not take effect against the legal person after the legal person asserts a defense against a non-good-faith counterparty; on the other hand, the legal person must still bear the legal consequences arising from the ineffectiveness of the ultra vires act. Such an interpretation not only avoids legal conflicts but also achieves fairness and rationality, ensuring jurisprudential coherence.