[Keywords:] Anonymous Agency Apparent Agency Behavior Contract Relativity False Agency
First of all, the questions raised
First of all, look at a case: B registered in the industrial and commercial department and obtained the qualification of building materials wholesale and retail operation, and had a building materials store, but it was operated by A all the time. After purchasing building materials on credit from Party A for many times, Party C issued an IOU to Party C, and the name of the creditor on the IOU was Party B, the person in charge of the business license. Later, because C defaulted on the payment, A sued in the name of B with an IOU. Because A did not have B's authorization, the court informed B to appear in court. At this time, Party C pointed out that he had never met Party B, and there was no creditor-debtor relationship with Party B. Party B acknowledged this, and stated that since all the building materials stores had been transferred to Party A for operation, he neither participated in the dispute between Party A and Party C, nor wanted to ask questions. The court ruled to terminate the lawsuit on the grounds that the case could not be established. Helpless, Party A had to file a new lawsuit in its own name, and during the trial, Party C claimed that the creditor on the IOU was Party B and he never knew Party A's name, requesting the court to dismiss Party A's lawsuit according to the provisions of China's Civil Procedure Law. This case put A in a dilemma, and the judge was puzzled at once: What is the legal nature of the trading behavior of A and C? Who should C pay for the goods? What is the legal or legal basis for payment? In this regard, there are the following opinions:
The first opinion is that this behavior of A belongs to anonymous agency. Because A has been operating by himself, C has no idea that there is B behind A, so it is an anonymous agent, and C can choose to pay debts to B or A. ..
The second view is that under the existing agency system and its theoretical framework, A's behavior should be apparent agency. Because its external expression is enough to convince Party C that it represents Party B and conforms to the characteristics of agency by estoppel, it should have the legal consequences of effective agency between Party B and Party C, and Party C should naturally fulfill its payment obligation to Party B. Party A can only claim rights from Party B based on its relationship with Party B, and even hold Party B accountable for its inaction.
The third view is that in this case, A's behavior is actually a violation of discipline. Because after Party A takes over the building materials store, although it is engaged in business in the name of Party B (industrial and commercial registration certificate), it is actually engaged in business independently, enjoying the business income and bearing the business consequences, so Party C shall fulfill its payment obligations to Party A. ..
In addition, there are many views that A's behavior is anonymous agency, affiliated management, and competition between bank discipline and direct agency, and so on. Different opinions also lead to different results of case handling. In view of the strong theoretical and practical guidance of this case, the author intends to make a legal analysis of the nature and form of behavior A in this case and teach it to civil law scholars.
Secondly, the analysis of some concepts in the agency system and their case comparison.
Since the establishment of the agency system in the German Civil Code, although it has been generally accepted by civil law countries, there have been theoretical disputes on the nature, manifestations and scope of application of the agency system, not to mention legislative differences. According to China's current civil law, agency is a civil legal system in which an agent acts with a third party in the name of the principal and the consequences of his actions are borne by the principal. Theoretically, there are many forms and classifications of agency. In the civil law system, according to whether the agent acts with the third party in his own name, the agent is divided into direct agent and indirect agent; According to the agent's active expression of will or direct expression of will, agents are divided into positive agents and negative agents; According to whether the agency act is a legal act based on the agency right, the agency can be divided into authorized agency and unauthorized agency, and unauthorized agency can be divided into narrow unauthorized agency and apparent agency. According to whether the agency is based on my will, the agency is divided into legal agency and intentional agency; According to whether there are specific restrictions on the scope of agency, agents are divided into general agents and special agents; In addition, there are self-agency, double agency and multiple agency. [1] The Anglo-American law system does not divide the forms of agency as carefully as the continental law system, and it is mainly divided into the following three forms: named clients, anonymous clients and undisclosed clients. The first two cases are the same as the direct agency in continental law system, and the third case belongs to indirect agency. [2] Whether the agency is carried out in the name of the principal is one of the fundamental differences between the civil law system and the common law system. Anglo-American law does not distinguish between agency basic relationship and agency relationship, nor does it pay attention to the difference between agency and related legal acts or legal relationships, so its legal relationship is vague and difficult to define accurately. The so-called anonymous agency in its own name in Anglo-American law is actually a subject in continental law. Therefore, when legislating in our country, we should pay attention to absorbing the traditional theory of civil law system, and should not regard anonymous agency as a form of agency in the agency legal system, but stipulate the entrustment contract in the contract law.
Anonymous agency means that an agent does not disclose his name or identify himself as an agent under the premise of having the right of agency; Or disclose my identity as an agent, but do not engage in legal acts with a third party in my own name, I will still bear the legal consequences of the agency act. In civil law, anonymous agents should include "agents whose identities are not public" and "agents whose identities are public but whose names are not public". Because no matter whether it is public or not, the agent does not take "his own name" as a civil act with a third party, which is essentially different from the famous agent in continental law. [3] Although there are many definitions of anonymous agency in concept, all the requirements are that the agent must have a power of attorney and not disclose the name or identity of the principal. [4] In the above case, when Party A deals with Party C, it is not in its own name, but always in the name of Party B. The name displayed is the so-called principal, but its name is hidden. Therefore, Party A's behavior is by no means an anonymous agent.
Theoretically, anonymous agency is often regarded as equivalent to indirect agency, so there is no need to discuss whether A's behavior in the above case belongs to indirect agency. However, some recent theoretical research results show that the so-called concept of equivalence between the two is only equivalent in understanding, and there are still legal differences between them, so the author thinks it is necessary to analyze it by comparing the connotation of indirect agency. The so-called indirect agency means that the agent engages in civil acts in his own name, and its legal effect is transferred to the agent of the principal through agreement. Anonymous agency emphasizes that the agent does not indicate the name of the principal, while indirect agency emphasizes that the principal is not directly responsible for the agency consequences of the agent. That is to say, in indirect agency, it is sometimes possible to show the identity of the agent without disclosing the name of the principal, or to disclose the identity of the principal but still carry out civil activities in his own name. Therefore, compared with the above cases, during the transaction with C, A neither indicated his agent identity nor revealed the identity of B's principal (let's call it the principal). Only C thought A was B in the business license, so A's behavior obviously did not meet the characteristics of indirect agency.
From the analysis of the concept of agency by estoppel, the above cases seem to imply the characteristics of agency by estoppel, but according to the general concept of agency by estoppel, agency by estoppel must have the right to convince a bona fide and innocent third party that the agent has the right to represent himself based on some legal fact or legal relationship. There are mainly the following types: 1, agency by estoppel, which is produced by my act of expressing authorization to others; 2. Agency by estoppel caused by agent's ultra vires behavior; 3. Due to the continuation of agency behavior, apparent agency has the illusion of authorization. In this case, C didn't have the consciousness of "I exist" when trading, and didn't find any fact or legal relationship that made him think that the actor he traded with had the appearance of representing someone. Therefore, this form cannot have the legal effect of making Party B bear the agency liability by estoppel to Party C.. Similarly, Party C can't bear the responsibility of the third party in the agency by estoppel relationship to Party B. Therefore, it is considered that A's behavior is the view of agency by estoppel, only seeing that A is an inherent feature of "unauthorized agency", not based on the institutional value of agency by estoppel. When my interests conflict with the interests of the third party, the law will protect the trust interests of the third party, thus maintaining the transaction safety and maintaining the transaction order of the whole society. Those who advocate that A's behavior is agency by estoppel think that C already knows the existence of B behind A when trading, so it will come to such an almost absurd conclusion.
Some people think that A's behavior belongs to disciplinary action in civil law. According to Article 414 of China's Contract Law: "An intermediary contract is a contract in which the broker engages in trading activities for the client in his own name and the client pays remuneration." Among them, carrying out activities in the name of individuals seems to be the same as anonymous agents. However, Mr. Mei Zhongxie, a scholar in Taiwan Province Province, believes that the trustee-trader is an indirect agent: "Of course, the trustee-trader should attribute the results of handling affairs to the principal, but as far as the business nature of the trustee-trader is concerned, in foreign relations, that is, the so-called relationship with the counterparty, the trustee-trader should enjoy the rights and take responsibility for its affairs, and so is the so-called indirect agent." [5] Therefore, the relationship between banks and disciplines should be composed of entrustment contracts and transaction contracts with third parties. As Mr. Gao Fuping and Mr. Wang Lianguo said, "The broker's special mode of operation makes him a party to two contracts. One is the entrustment contract between the broker and the customer, that is, the broker contract; The other is the transaction contract between the trustee-trader and the third party, that is, the sales contract. These two contracts constitute two pairs of contractual relationships and become the two core legal relationships of the business. " [6] There seems to be no essential difference between this and the agency relationship. Although China has standardized anonymous agency into the disciplinary system, there are still differences between disciplinary and agency. First of all, there are differences in appellation. The trustee is the trustee in the brokerage relationship and the agent in the agency relationship. Since these two concepts are strictly used in legal terms, it fully shows that their connotations are different, which will lead people to further explore the difference between bank punishment and anonymous agency or indirect agency. According to the traditional view that trust is brokerage, the trustee (principal) can be a legal person or a citizen, but the trustee is limited to legal persons who are approved to operate trust business, such as trust shops, consignment shops, trade warehouses, means of production service companies, and daily necessities dispensing shops. [7] Individual citizens and legal persons may not engage in or concurrently engage in trust business without the approval of legal procedures. [8] An agent can be a legal person or a natural person with civil capacity. As an agent, a legal person does not need to obtain the permission of any organ. In judicial practice, when examining the qualifications of brokers and the effectiveness of brokerage relationship, we often pay special attention to whether they have registered to engage in brokerage business. For agents, especially anonymous agents, only the agent's behavioral ability can be considered. In addition, discipline is usually paid, while institutions may be unpaid. Finally, in the relationship between the trustee and the trustee, the principal can't directly assume the contract effect between the trustee and the third party from the third party, while the anonymous agent is not. If the agent discloses the principal, the principal and the third party may directly ask the other party to perform the contractual obligations. Under the circumstances mentioned in this article, if Party A is a broker, it must register its business in its own name, so that the transaction between Party A and Party B can be regulated by Article 421 of China's Contract Law, that is, "If the broker enters into a contract with a third party, the broker shall directly enjoy rights and assume obligations for the contract." But unfortunately, A in the case has been operating in the name of B, which objectively caused A not to be a broker. Although the substantial result of the transaction with C is directly borne by Party A, it seems that there is no possibility of winning the case if we want to make C's defense untenable and directly use the disciplinary system as a weapon to refute C's defense. The author thinks that A's behavior in this case does not conform to the legal characteristics of disciplinary behavior, so it is not a disciplinary behavior and has no right to claim rights from C as a disciplinarian.
There is also a view that A's behavior belongs to the concurrence of disciplinary behavior and direct agency behavior. The author believes that what this view originally wanted to express may be the combination of disciplinary behavior and direct agency behavior, which is a partially overlapping behavior. It extracts "in the name of the principal" from the direct agency, extracts the disciplinarian who bears the consequences of the contract from the punishment, and combines the two, but I don't know what legal form, characteristics and how to design its legal status can be pieced together. Nevertheless, this bold idea and creativity can at least give the author a guiding idea: is there a concept that can regulate A's behavior in this case within the framework of the current agency legal system or other legal systems in civil law? If not, can it explain that this form is not standardized in China's civil legal system or even in civil law theory?
Third, the theory of contract relativity and its application
Generally speaking, the relativity of contract includes the relativity of contract subject, contract content and contract responsibility. [9] The contractual relationship can only occur between specific subjects, and only one party to the contract can claim rights or bring a lawsuit against the other party to the contract; Only the parties to the contract can enjoy the rights and perform the obligations stipulated in the contract, and a third party other than the parties to the contract cannot claim rights and assume obligations in the contract. Contract liability can only be generated between specific parties to a contract. People outside the contract do not bear the liability for breach of contract, and the parties to the contractual relationship do not bear the liability for breach of contract. The theory of contract relativity shows such a legal mechanism: the effectiveness of a contract can only reach the parties who express the will of the contract. Anonymous proxy obviously broke through this mechanism. Although the direct contractual relationship between myself and the third party is not obvious in anonymous agency, my identity as a principal will be revealed after I exercise my right of intervention or the right of the third party to choose. At this time, my position is the same as that of the principal in a well-known agent, and the establishment of interference rights and options makes the anonymous agent lose its existence value.
It should be emphasized that anonymous agency can only be regulated within the scope of agency, that is, anonymous agents must actually enjoy agency rights. If we admit the existence of anonymous agency when the agent has no power of agency, it will inevitably lead to a kind of legal misleading, so that anyone will bear the favorable or unfavorable consequences for others' actions in his own name, thus implicating people for no reason, and the contract relativity system established according to the principle of autonomy in private law will be destroyed or even unsustainable.
As we all know, the purpose of civil juristic act is to produce legal effect in civil law, and the expression of the will of the actor is the basic element to produce legal effect according to the law. Under special circumstances, even if the actor did not inform the counterpart of his real name or name when carrying out the legal act, it will not affect the validity of the legal act. That is to say, in the establishment of a civil legal relationship, the name of the actor cannot change the validity of the established relationship, and no matter whose name it is, it will not affect the responsibility burden of the counterpart. "Because the ideograph of a legal act and the recipient of the legal effect of a legal act should be the same, anyone who makes a legal act should show his identity as a civil subject. If the actor does not indicate that it is his own legal act, he will also be presumed to be the legal effect recipient of the legal act. " [10] The civil subject identity mentioned here not only refers to the name of the actor himself, but also includes the basic information of the subject, such as age, gender, occupation and address. According to this information, the counterpart can fix his own transaction object and make it specific, so a specific civil legal relationship is established between the actor and the counterpart, resulting in specific civil rights and obligations. Of course, some transactions, especially many instant settlement transactions, do not need to specifically disclose the identity of the subject, such as shopping malls and shoppers, public transport companies and passengers.
Imagine, if C in the case mentioned in this article is the plaintiff who wants to claim rights, then who will be the defendant? Is it a or b? Perhaps this problem should be solved better, because Party C can claim rights from Party B through agency by estoppel or from Party A through the principle of privity of contract. In practice, Party A and Party B can even be regarded as defendants, without paying attention to the internal relationship between Party A and Party B ... There is a lot of room for choice. Why is this happening? Because the system is usually designed to protect the interests of the third party, it seems that all countries at home and abroad are no exception. In Japan, the person who authorizes the third party shall be responsible for the behavior between other people and the third party within the scope of his authorization. [1 1] The Japanese case also holds that this provision is applicable to cases where one's own name and trade name are allowed. In Germany, when the authorized person (Vollmachtgeber) delivers the power of attorney (Vollmachtsurkunde) to the agent, when the agent presents the power of attorney to the third party, it shall be regarded as the same as when the authorized person grants the power of attorney by special notice. [12] According to Article 169 of the Civil Code of Taiwan Province Province, there are two situations in which a third person thinks that the agent has the power of agency because of his own behavior: 1. If my own behavior shows that the agency is granted to others, this indication is "fact notice" in nature; 2. Those who know that others represent them as agents rather than opponents. The last sentence of Article 66 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of our country stipulates that anyone who knows that another person has committed a civil act in his own name and does not deny it shall be deemed to have agreed. It can be seen that the design and arrangement of the legal system always has a question of who should be protected, and the object of protection in the above clauses is the legitimate rights and interests of the third party. Therefore, when the legitimate rights and interests of C are infringed, its institutional guarantee will be in place and it will be relatively easy to handle in practice.
However, when C is the defendant, why are there a series of problems in the application of the law? This in turn involves the question of who comes first in terms of contractual rights and obligations. Many scholars believe that "rights are set first and obligations are generated later". In essence, contractual obligations come into being before rights, and contractual obligations are not subordinate to rights. The reason why people sign contracts in transactions is to meet their own needs. Only when the needs are justified can they become rights and be satisfied. [13] A contract first sets the obligations of both parties, and rights arise when both parties fail to perform their obligations. When the obligation is not fulfilled properly, society or law will require it to be fulfilled, and because of this, the relative talents will seek legal support and make a request to the defaulter, thus generating the right of claim. From this point of view, when C makes a request as the obligee, there must be the subject and behavior that should perform the obligation, and the subject and its performance behavior are the guarantee for the realization of the right, while the counterpart of C has Party A and Party B, so it has more choices and more possibilities for the realization of the right.
In this case, C is the subject of obligation, that is, the person who is requested to perform the obligation. When he issued an IOU to A, he had already begun to assume legal obligations. To fulfill this obligation, for Party C, it is not necessary to pay attention to the internal relationship between Party A and Party B, as long as it is fulfilled reasonably, because the obligation comes first and the claim comes later. If c argues that it should not perform its obligations to a or b, it is a copy of the obligations after the right, which is of course not in line with the jurisprudence and the conclusion is of course not valid. Judging from the relativity of contract subjects, B is neither an ideologist in trading behavior nor an effect receiver of A behavior. Therefore, the transaction behavior of A and C cannot be legally binding on B..
Fourth, the civil law theory of false agency behavior and its form analysis.
Facing the changing needs of social life, the author finds that the existing agency system in civil law theory is still stretched. Not only is there no clear provision for anonymous agency in law, but the existing civil law provisions can't summarize some phenomena in life, which needs to be improved urgently. Driven by their own interests, civil subjects will engage in trading activities in ways that are not explicitly prohibited or cannot be prohibited by various laws, which makes the judicial organs have problems in the absence of clear provisions in the law. Then, since the law is a tool to maintain social order, it should be based on the needs of society. As long as the interests between civil subjects in society can be effectively protected, the creation of law can be regarded as achieving its goal. Otherwise, it may fall into the wrong path of pure conceptual law, thus failing to achieve the purpose of legislation. As American jurist Holmes said: "The life of law lies not in logic, but in experience. The perceived necessity of the times, the prevailing moral and political theories, the direct understanding of public policies (whether open or unconscious), and even the prejudice of judges or other compatriots play a greater role than deductive reasoning in determining the rules that people should rely on. " [14] Therefore, in order to make up for the theoretical and institutional deficiencies of the cases described in this paper, the author tries to make the following exploration and analysis.
In this case, C is dealing with a specific person. During the transaction, C subjectively does not think that A sells building materials on behalf of B.. Actually, C doesn't know there is an independent B at all. In C's eyes, A who deals with it is the owner registered in the business license, that is, C always thinks that A's name is B. Only in later litigation, C learns that A and B are two independent natural persons, and then puts forward various defense reasons. It is true that when Party A received the IOU issued by Party C, it knew that the creditor specified in the IOU was Party B, but did not raise any objection, and disclosed its real name to Party C, which subjectively led Party C to think that it was the owner registered in the business license. During the whole transaction, Party A did not conceal Party B's name, nor did it disclose Party B's identity or name. The author defines this behavior of doing his own transaction in the name of others as pseudo-agent (or virtual agent).
False agency has nothing to do with agency in nature and does not even belong to the inherent content of agency system in scope. It is only because it is named after others that it is placed in the framework structure of the agency, so some terms in the agency system in this sense are borrowed. On the surface, though, fake agency behavior has some characteristics that regulate agency behavior, such as the agent independently implements agency behavior, the agent expresses his will to a third person other than himself, and the way and object of will expression are not interfered by himself. It lacks the effect and significance of agency behavior. The so-called effectiveness means that the agent attributes the legal consequences set by the agency behavior to himself. "When an agent expresses his own meaning, he has the discretion to determine the effective meaning within a certain range, and he makes the effective meaning entirely by himself, while the behavior expressed by others on his behalf is not an agency behavior." [15] On the other hand, when someone makes a valid will, he expresses his will, which is contrary to the purpose of the agency system, so this kind of behavior should belong to someone's own behavior, and of course it will not produce the legal effect of effective agency. That is to say, when the subject of behavior is integrated with the subject of effect and meaning, even if it is a civil act in the name of others, the act can not have an effect on others, and can only be regarded as someone's own behavior. The concept of false agency is put forward in this sense. In this relationship, the person who makes the effect meaning is the so-called agent, and the agent is the agent, which is a typical example of the integration of the agent and the subject of the effect meaning. Therefore, the behavior of the actor can not produce the legal consequences of effective agency at all, so it seems very appropriate to call the behavior of the actor a false agency.
The remarkable feature of false agency is that the actor acts as an agent with a third party in the name of others without the authorization of others. Without the authorization of others, on the one hand, it means without the authorization of others, on the other hand, it means without the authorization of others. In this case, A's behavior should be the latter, that is, the transaction between A and C does not need B's authorization, and we can't apply fake agency to the scope of unauthorized agency, because it has nothing to do with no agency, surpassing agency, terminating agency, etc. The concept of unauthorized handling cannot be applied. In fact, A has obtained the right to dispose of building materials as commodities from B. Therefore, what needs to be explored is the nature of A's behavior. Whether it is authorized agency, unauthorized agency or fake agency, it has its own abstract essence. In agency behavior, its abstract essence means that the agent serves the interests of others with his own behavior. If you don't serve others, you can't be called an agent, you can only bear the consequences of your own actions. False agency is not the agency essence of serving others, and false agency banks naturally have to bear the consequences of their actions.
Some of my colleagues suggest that in this case, the theory of apparent ownership can be used to avoid agency. The theory of apparent ownership means that if the principal paints the agent with the color of owner and makes the agent the owner of the property in the eyes of a third party, then the disposition of the property by the agent is binding on the principal, and the third party can also obtain full property ownership according to law. That is to say, even if the unauthorized disposition contract is invalid because the obligee refuses to ratify it, it will not affect the third party to obtain the ownership of the subject matter according to the theory of apparent ownership. Colleagues believe that since the third party has obtained the ownership of the subject matter, it has the obligation to pay the corresponding price of the subject matter and should pay it to the apparent owner. The author thinks that this view, fundamentally speaking, does not leave the nest of apparent agency, but only looks at the handling of this case from another angle, which is suspected of jumping into the scope of bona fide acquisition system in continental law system from the agency system and cannot solve the theoretical problems brought by this case.
To sum up, the author believes that using the concept of false agency to solve the theoretical confusion of this case will have special effects. Under the circumstances of this article, Party A shows that it is dealing with Party C by its own behavior. Although Party C wrote the creditor on the IOU as Party B when issuing the IOU, its effectiveness and meaning should be attributed to Party A, regardless of the name of Party A, especially when Party C has certain contractual obligations, not to mention the title of Party A's behavior. Therefore, when Party A sues Party C in its own name, the defense that Party C does not owe Party A money for building materials cannot be established. Of course, if Party A fails to fulfill the obligation of informing and causes damage to others, Party A can be held responsible according to the principle of fault in false agency.
Precautions:
[1] Fan Jiang: Research on the Agency Legal System, China Legal Publishing House, 2000, pp. 20 ~ 2 1.
[2] Wang Liming: Research on Civil and Commercial Law (Fifth Series), Law Press 200 1 Edition, p. 87.
[3] Same as [1], p. 122.
(4) There are several definitions of anonymous proxy in theory: 1. Anonymous agency means that when signing a contract, an agent discloses the existence of the agency relationship and acknowledges his agency status, but actually does not disclose the name of the principal to a third party. This contract shall be regarded as a contract between the client and a third party, and the client shall bear the consequences of the contract. See Wang Ying Dong Zhang: Reflections on Agency and Foreign Trade Agency, China Law 1997,1; 2, anonymous agent, the agent's intention, even if it is not expressly for this person, if the other party knows or can know that it is for this person, it is directly an effective agent for me. See Hu Changqing: General Theory of Civil Law in China, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1997, p. 297; 3. The so-called anonymous agent refers to an agent who has the power of agency, but does not represent the identity of an agent, or only carries out legal acts in his own name. Li See Guo Kai: Research on Basic Issues of Civil Law, Law Press, 1997, p. 233; 4. Anonymous agency means that an agent enjoys the right of agency, but does not disclose his identity as an agent to a third party, and acts as a civil act in his own name, and the consequences of this act are still directly borne by the principal. See Tong Rou: Civil Law of China? General Principles of Civil Law, People's Public Security University of China Press, 1990, p. 264; 5. Anonymous agency is an agency that does not represent the principal and does not implement it in its name. See Zhang Junhao: Principles of Civil Law, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1997, p. 264.
[5] Mei Zhongxie: Essentials of Civil Law, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1998, p. 1 130.
[6] Gao Fuping, Wang Lianguo: Intermediary Contract of Entrustment Contract, China Legal Publishing House, 1999, p. 1 145.
[7] Tong Rou: Principles of Civil Law, Law Press, 1983, p. 366.
[8] Wang Zuotang: Civil Law Course, Peking University Publishing House, 1983, p. 355.
[9] Wang Liming: Research on Civil and Commercial Law (Series III), Law Press, 1999, p. 428.
[10] is the same as [1], page 120.
[1 1] See Article 109 of the Japanese Civil Code.
[12] See Article 172 of the German Civil Code.
[13] Xiang Yong: On the essence of contractual obligations, Law No.9, 1999.
[14] Holmes's famous saying, although mainly aimed at the Anglo-American legal system, is also instructive to the legal application and legal evolution of codified countries. Because it brilliantly reveals the value thinking supported by experience, and it is something that gives life to logical thinking, especially deduction. See Principles of Civil Law, edited by Zhang Junhao, China University of Political Science and Law Press, 1997, p. 46.
[15] Fu: The Scope of Civil Agency, Selected Papers on Law compiled by the Teaching and Research Section of East China University of Political Science and Law.
(Author: Huaiyin District People's Court, Huai 'an City, Jiangsu Province)
Excerpt from People's Court Network