论文部分内容阅读
《公司法》第16条具有一定的模糊性,该条款的出台并没有给公司担保纠纷的处理带来确定性保障,司法实践中仍然产生很多“同案不同判”现象。公司担保涉及公司本身、股东及债权人等多方利益冲突,我们不能片面地仅从公司法、合同法或担保法一个方面着手来认定公司担保合同的效力。在公司担保合同效力的认定过程中,我们应当有意识地融入价值判断与利益衡量,平衡公司股东和担保权人的利益。二者之间利益平衡应当通过担保权人即相对人的审查义务来实现,担保合同的效力取决于相对人是否尽到了对公司章程和决议的审查义务。在审查义务的标准上,相对人需要尽到形式审查义务。如果法定代表人超越权限订立担保合同,该合同对公司不产生法律效力。
Article 16 of the Company Law has a certain degree of ambiguity. The promulgation of the article did not bring any definitive guarantee to the handling of the Company’s guarantee disputes, and so many “judgments of different clauses” still persisted in judicial practice. Corporate guarantees involve the conflicts of interests between the company itself, the shareholders and the creditors, etc. We can not unilaterally determine the validity of the company’s guarantee contract only from one aspect of company law, contract law or guarantee law. In the process of determining the validity of a company’s guarantee contract, we should consciously incorporate the value judgments and interests measures to balance the interests of the shareholders and the security rights of the company. The balance of interests between the two should be realized through the obligation of review of the guarantor, ie, the counterpart. The validity of the guarantee contract depends on whether the counterpart has fulfilled its obligation of reviewing the articles of association and resolutions of the company. In reviewing the standard of obligation, relatives need to fulfill the obligation of formal review. If the legal representative surrender authority to enter into a guarantee contract, the contract does not have legal effect on the company.