论表见代理的构成要件——单要件说？双要件说？抑或区别说？

以是否应当包括本人具有过错为标志,表见代理的构成要件有单要件说与双要件说之争.合同法第49条究竟采纳何种学说,在学术上尚有疑问.然而,无论是单要件说还是双要件说,两者在论证自己的观点时均以是否符合公平正义和保护交易安全的需要为出发点.因此,本文也自此入手分析表见代理的构成要件,认为私法有民法和商法之分,表见代理也必有民法上的表见代理与商法上的表见代理之别.基于民法与商法的价值取向不同,前者应采双要件说,后者则应采单要件说.两者不分,无论是认为表见代理应采单要件说还是应采双要件说,均有失妥当.

Review of the Essentials,Form the Term of "gency by Estoppel"--Unilateral Essential? Bilateral Essentials or Separate Essentials

There are disputes with the theory of the unilateral essential and the theory of the bilateral essentials on the agency by estoppel,by the characteristice of negligence of the principal.The contract law don't tell us which theory it has taken.But we agree that the justice and the exchange security ought to be the legal value of the agency by estoppel.This article insists that we take the theory of the unilateral essential on the agency by estoppel in the field of the commercial law,but the bilateral essentials in the field of the civil law.My theory of the agency by estoppel is separate essentials.