經理人於民法上爲商號所有人之分身，因此，其權限之限制有其法定限制。除少數情形外，經理人有爲商號、或其分號或商號之一部事務爲營業上一切行爲之權。然此一規範是否亦一體適用於公司，學說間則有分歧。 多數學者與實務見解皆認定在我國民商合一之體例下，民法以普通法之地位補充特別法之公司法規範不足之處。因此，公司之經理人其權限之限縮亦應有民法規定之適用。然持反對見解者或從公司法修正前後之不同，或從避免董事會之形骸化，主張公司法應與民法就經理人之規定中切割；亦即，公司法上之經理人並無如同民法上經理人之廣泛權限；經理人之職權係依章程與契約決定，甚且經理人並無業務決策權。 本文試從公司機關之分析出發，從經理人在公司所扮演之角色尋求其定位，並以此定位肯認其與民法上之經理人所應有之權限並無二致。然而，基於股份有限公司企業規模較大，在公司法上設有董事會之層級，因此，公司、董事會與經理人這三層架構有其存在之需求，而其間之關係亦應予以釐清。 另一方面，本文亦從經理人對公司之功能，主張公司應承擔使用經理人所享有之便利，其背後所引發之風險，並試圖以登記制度降低交易雙方之查證成本。以客觀認定方式決定經理人之權限以避免個案查證之困擾；同時藉由登記及一般商業經驗幫助交易相對人確認經理人之身分及其應有之權限。

The manager is the alternate of the firm's owner; as a result, he/she has authorities to manage the affairs of the firm and to sign on the firm's behalf. As regards third parties, the manager is deemed to have authority to do whatever is necessary for the management of the firm, or branch or line of business entrusted to him unless otherwise provided by the law. Whether the above mentioned rules of the Civil Code can be applied to corporate managers is somehow debated. Most scholars and court cases advocate that the provisions of the Civil Code are the supplements of the Company Law; thus, whenever there is inadequacy existing in the Company Law, resorting to the Civil Code is the proper application of law. Nonetheless, some scholars are opposed to this argument and emphasize the specific characteristic of companies which justifies the deviation from the Civil Code. In other words, the authority of the corporate manager should not be as wide as that of the firm's manager. This article is endeavored to analyze the function of the corporate manager, which demonstrates that it has no difference from the firm's manager in the Civil Code. It is the organ, the board of directors, with limited time and human resources available, sub-delegates its power to managers, and thus constitutes the ”tri-level” structure in the company limited by shares. Based this ”tri-level” structure, some clarification between the manger and the board, the manager and the company, need to be further narrated. Besides that, this article also examines the agency system and its affects on transaction counterparties. Together with the registration system, it is suggested that in the future the registration of mangers should be mandatory to effect the appointment of managers.