论建设工程合同中表见代理之认定

On the Recognition of Apparent Agency in Construction Project Contracts

摘要: 《建工解释二讨论稿》第5条第4款未能充分解决建工领域常见的表见代理问题。首先，区分职务代理与表见代理应以是否存在劳动关系以及职权范围的具体界定为依据，职务表见代理与一般表见代理在相对人的善意程度、适用范围和法律适用等方面存在差异。其次，借用人以出借人名义对外订立合同的行为不应被认定为职务代理，而应考虑其是否构成表见代理。再次，在判断行为人的权利外观、相对人的善意且无过失时，应结合建设工程的实际情况，综合相关因素进行全面评估。最后，在建设工程中表见代理的认定过程中，不应考虑被代理人的可归责性问题。

Abstract: The fourth paragraph of Article 5 in the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Construction Project Contracts (Draft for Discussion)” fails to adequately address the common issue of apparent agency in the construction industry. Firstly, the distinction between agency by position and apparent agency should be based on the existence of a labor relationship and the specific definition of the scope of authority. There are differences between apparent agency by position and general apparent agency in terms of the degree of good faith of the counterparty, the scope of application, and the application of law. Secondly, the act of a borrower entering into a contract in the name of the lender should not be regarded as agency by position, but rather, it should be considered whether it constitutes apparent agency. Thirdly, when assessing the appearance of the actor’s rights and the good faith and lack of fault of the counterparty, the actual situation of the construction project should be taken into account, and a comprehensive evaluation should be made based on relevant factors. Finally, in the process of determining apparent agency in construction projects, the issue of the principal’s liability should not be considered.