摘要： 在任意拍卖中，出卖人身份的确定须以拍卖中三方当事人之间的法律关系得到澄清为前提。委托人与拍卖人之间成立的是委托合同，而非行纪合同。拍卖人在以委托人的名义出卖时，发生直接代理效果；在名义不明或者以自己的名义出卖时，根据代理法上的“知悉”标准，发生直接代理或者间接代理效果。通过拍卖建立的买卖合同的当事人因此有不同答案。拍卖人与竞买人之间通常还存在居间合同。拍卖人同时充当拍卖委托人的代理人和竞买人的居间人时，原则上无利益冲突。因此《拍卖法》第40条第1款是在拍卖人未以委托人名义活动时，买受人主张买卖合同违约救济的请求权基础；第61条第1款前段则为买受人主张居间合同违约救济的请求权基础。

关键词: 任意拍卖, 居间合同, 代理效果二元论, 违约责任

Abstract: In private auctions, only if the threefold legal relationship involving consignor, auctioneer and buyerhad been clarified, can the seller’s identity be determined. The auctioneer acts as an agent, other than aKommissionar, for the consignor. In the case the auctioneer acts in the name of the consignor, it is the consignor and the buyer that should be bound by the sales contract; in the case the name is unclear or the auctioneer acts in his or her own name, whether the auctioneer can take the seller’s liability should be determined in light of the buyer’s actual acknowledgment of the consignor’s identity. Furthermore, the auctioneernormally acts as a broker for the bidders. There is no necessary conflict of interests when the auctioneer actsboth as the consignor’s agent and the bidders’ broker. Art. 40（1）of Chinese Auction Law（CAL） providesfoundation for the buyer to claim damages due to the seller’s failure to perform the sales contract when theauctioneer does not act in the consignor’s name, while the first part of CAL Art. 61（1）provides foundationfor the buyer to claim damages arising from the broker’s（auctioneer’s） failure to properly disclose defects.

Key words: Private Auctions, Brokerage Contract, Double Categories of Agency, Liability forBreach of Contract