What Does a Reservation Agent Do?

Self-agent is one of the manifestations of abuse of agency power. Refers to an agent engaging in a civil act with himself in the name of the agent. Article 7 (3) of China's Economic Contract Law stipulates that the contract signed by the agent in his own name is invalid. The reasons are: (1) self-representation does not meet the basic characteristics of the agency and should not have legal consequences for effective agency; (2) self-representation often damages the legal rights and interests of the principal and violates the purpose of the agency system; (3) self-representation Violation of the basic principle of the contract must be agreed upon by both parties. Some people have argued that the following two cases should be used as exceptions for their own agents: (1) prior consent of the agent; (2) specifically for performance of debt. ^[1]

Self-agent

1. This behavior is an agency behavior, and it is an obvious abuse of agency rights, which violates the essential characteristics of agency and the principle of good faith and should be prohibited.

The legal principle lies in that: a contract is a legal act of both parties, and the parties are pursuing the maximization of their own interests; and a contract entered into by or on their behalf is a unilateral act of the agent, and it is difficult to avoid the agent from sacrificing the agent for its own benefit Interests, or situations that harm one or both parties. Therefore, it is prohibited in principle by the laws of various countries.

2. This behavior is an agency behavior, which is basically invalid, but there is an exception: if the contract concluded between the agent and the agent of the two parties is subsequently ratified by the agent, the legal consequences of the contract belong to the agent and shall be valid.

In January 1995, Article 37 of the Contract Law Scholar's Proposal "Contract Law of the People's Republic of China (Draft Draft)" compiled by Mr. Liang Huixing provided that: "A contract entered into by both parties shall be invalid. However, it is in accordance with legal requirements or business practices This is not the case if it is approved or ratified by both parties. "Article 38 states:" A contract entered into by the agent in the name of the agent is invalid. However, the contract purely benefits the party of the agent. This is not the case. " This provision is stipulated in the section on invalid contracts under Chapter III. It can be seen that scholars have a negative attitude in principle to the validity of the contract concluded between their agents and the agents of both parties, but also made exceptions. This is the same as a major progress on the basis of the original economic contract law, which makes the system more perfect, and has the same effect as the provisions of the system in civil law countries. For example, Article 181 of the German Civil Code states: "Agents must not act with themselves in the name of themselves, nor can they act as agents of third parties and themselves, without special permission; however, legal acts are Those who are solely for the purpose of debt are not subject to this limitation. "Article 108 of the Japanese Civil Code states:" No one shall be the agent of its counterpart or the agent of both parties in respect of the same legal act. However, the performance of debts is not limited to this. "Article 106 of the Civil Code of Taiwan, China states:" Agents must not be the legal acts of themselves and themselves, nor can they be third parties without their own promises. And the third party's legal acts. But their legal acts are those who perform debts exclusively. This is not the case. "Although the above-mentioned legislative provisions provide for legal acts, contracts are a lower level of legal acts. Concepts, the principles to which the higher-order concept applies, of course, apply to the lower-order concept. It can be seen that the laws of most countries and regions deny the validity of the contracts concluded between their own agents and the agents of both parties, but at the same time they have also made flexible provisions.

The writer believes that the contract concluded between the agent and the agent of the two parties shall be a contract with a pending effect. The contract concluded between the agent and the agent of both parties has the characteristic of abuse of agency right. In the former, it is actually a contract concluded between the agent and the agent, forming the contractual rights and obligations relationship between the agent and the agent. The contract relationship does not involve a third party. In order to protect the interests of the principal, the principal should enjoy the right of rescission. The contract with the agent takes effect from the beginning. In the latter, because no third party is involved in the contract relationship, the contract is handled by the agent alone, and one person represents the interests of both parties at the same time. It is inevitable to lose sight of each other and to achieve a balance of interests. However, this kind of behavior of "contracting two parties by one hand" to enter into a contract for the agents of both parties can sometimes be a "bowl of water" and can satisfy the interests of two agents at the same time. If both agents are happy and neither advocates rescission, this contract shall also take effect from the beginning.

3. In fact, there is no agency behavior on your own behalf, so there is no need to confirm that the agency behavior is invalid or revocable.