- 英文摘要
- The 109th year Tai-Jian-Shang-Zi Civil Judgment No. 61 of the Supreme Court involves the identification of blank authorization bills and bill agent, the qualification and effect of bill amount changes, the applicable requirements of unauthorized agent in bill law, and issues concerning apparent agency in civil law. In that case, the drawer authorized the object of supplementing the record of bill amount and issuing date to a person other than the counterparty of the bill act, which should be a bill agent rather than a blank authorization bill. The agent changed the bill amount before delivering to the endorser, which was a rewriting of the bill amount rather than a alteration of the bill. The effect of the bill amount rewriting involves the interpretation of Article 11, Paragraph 3 of the Bill Law. From the perspective of legislative purpose, bill transaction security, the nature and effectiveness of regulation, Paragraph 3 of Article 3 of the Bill Law is a prohibitive provision, the violation of which should not affect the effectiveness of bill act. The Supreme Court held that Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bill Law applies only when the agent signs the bill in the name of an agent beyond his authority. However, Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bill Law stipulates the legal assured’s responsibility for the ultra vires agent, which is irrelevant to whether the agent signs the bill. Therefore, even if the ultra vires agent acts on behalf of the himself by signing, he should still bear the bill responsibility for the part beyond his authority. Finally, as there is no ordinary-special relationship between Article 169 of the Civil Code and Paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Bill Law, for the part beyond the authority, under the apparent authorization by himself, the faultless holder with good faith can not only claim the ultra vires agent to bear the bill responsibility, but also choose to claim himself to bear the authorizer's responsibility according to Article 169 of the Civil Code. While this paper may agree with the conclusion of the Supreme Court judgment, its reasoning and analysis of the related controversial issues are still open for discussion.
- 目次
- 壹、前言
貳、本案事實與歷審判決理由
一、本案事實
二、歷審判決理由
參、爭點提出
一、本案案例事實定性
二、票據金額變動之定性
三、票據法第10條第2項適用之可行性
肆、判決評析
一、本案案例事實定性
二、票據金額變動之定性與效力
三、票據法第10條第2項適用之可行性
伍、結論
