权利外观理论一般原理的内容，可从历史、目的、体系、本体四个角度进行阐述。 从历史角度来看，19世纪下半叶表示说的提出为权利外观理论的产生奠定了基础。《德国民法典》生效后，权利外观理论的发展经历了从狭义的权利外观概念扩张到广义的权利外观概念、再返回到狭义的权利外观概念的过程。 从目的角度来看，权利外观理论的目的是保护交易利益，对交易利益的保护有助于降低交易成本，从而实现经济效率的目标。此外，从超个人的角度，也能证成权利外观理论的合宪性。 从体系的角度来看，权利外观理论处在信赖保护原则之下，属于提供积极信赖保护的制度。诚实信用原则下的“根据法伦理必要性的信赖责任”，与权利外观理论的法律后果相同，但是，两者的保护对象和制度目的不同。私法自治原则和法律行为理论与信赖原则和权利外观理论之间具有相互独立性。 从本体角度来看，就权利外观理论的构成要件而言，其首先以存在一个客观的权利外观事实为前提。其次，信赖人必须是善意的，且需要作出 “信赖投资”。最后，承担权利外观负担的必须具有可归责性，风险原则最适合充当权利外观理论的归责原则。动态体系论不能作为权利外观理论的适用方法。 从本体角度来看，就权利外观理论的法律效果而言，其以信赖人的信赖被满足为主要内容。权利外观事实具有可撤销性，如果在制造权利外观事实的过程中具有意思瑕疵，可以类推适用关于意思瑕疵的规定，溯及既往地撤销权利外观事实。此外，权利外观理论的法律后果也具有可处分性，信赖人对于权利外观理论法律后果的成立具有选择权。 在我国《民法典》和商事单行法中有大量的权利外观理论规则。民法中的权利外观原则和商法中的权利外观原则分享权利外观原则的一般原理。两者在构成要件和法律效果上具有一定的区别。权利外观原则是一种“法条形式的原则”，其具有协助说明整体规范、帮助解释具体规范、助力填补法律漏洞等三种功能。在适用权利外观原则一般条款时，应当优先适用具体的权利外观规则，并利用类型化的方法将权利外观原则的一般条款具体化。 就公司法定代表人越权担保问题而言，权利外观理论有发挥作用的空间。在隐名参股的情形下，权利外观理论不能作为申请执行人排除执行异议的理由。在隐名出资情形下，名义股东处分其名下的股权，没有适用权利外观理论的余地。在一股两卖等情形下，股权的善意取得不能直接参照关于不动产善意取得的相关规定。

The content of the theory of Rechtsschein can be explained from the four perspectives of history, purpose, system and ontology. From the perspective of history, the theory of representation in the second half of the 19th century laid the foundation for the theory of Rechtsschein. After the German Civil Code came into effect, the development of the theory of Rechtsschein has experienced the process of expanding from the concept of narrow Rechtsschein to the concept of broad Rechtsschein, and then back to the concept of narrow Rechtsschein. From the perspective of purpose, the purpose of the theory of Rechtsschein is to protect transaction interests, and the protection of transaction interests can help reduce transaction costs and achieve the goal of economic efficiency. In addition, from a transpersonal perspective, the constitutionality of the theory of Rechtsschein can also be justified. From the perspective of system, the theory of Rechtsschein is under the principle of reliance protection and belongs to the system that provides positive reliance protection. The reliance responsibility according to the necessity of legal ethics under the principle of good faith has the same legal consequences as the theory of Rechtsschein, but their objects of protection and the purpose of the system are different. The principle of private autonomy and the theory of legal transaction are mutually independent from the principle of reliance and the theory of Rechtsschein. From the perspective of ontology, as far as the constitutive requirements of the theory of Rechtsschein are concerned, it first presupposes the existence of an objective fact of Rechtsschein. Second, the third party must be in good faith and need to make a "trust investment".Finally, those who bear the burden of Rechtsschein must be attributable, and the principle of risk is the most suitable attribution principle for the theory of Rechtsschein. The theory of dynamic system cannot be used as an applicable method to the theory of Rechtsschein. From the perspective of ontology, as far as the legal effect of the theory of Rechtsschein is concerned, its main content is that the trust of the trusting person is satisfied. Facts of Rechtsschein are revocable. If there are defects of intention in the process of making Rechtsschein, the provisions on defects of intention can be applied by analogy, and facts of Rechtsschein can be revoked retrospectively. In addition, Rechtsschein is disposable, and the third party in good faith has the right to choose whether to accept the legal effect of the theory of Rechtsschein. There are a large number of rules of the theory of Rechtsschein in China's civil code and commercial law. The principle of Rechtsschein in civil law and in commercial law share the general principles of the principle of Rechtsschein. There are certain differences between the two in terms of the constitutive requirements and legal effect. The principle of Rechtsschein is a "principle in the form of a legal article", which has three functions: assisting in explaining the overall norm, assisting in interpreting specific norms, and assisting in filling legal loopholes. When applying the general clauses of the principle of Rechtsschein, the specific rules of Rechtsschein should be applied first, and the general clauses of the principle of Rechtsschein should be concreted by means of typification. As far as the issue of ultra guarantee by the representative of a company is concerned, the theory of Rechtsschein has room to play a role. In the case of dormant investment, the theory of Rechtsschein cannot be used as a reason for the applicant of the execution to exclude the opposition of execution of the actual investor. In the case of dormant investment, there is no room for the application of the theory of Rechtsschein, if the nominal shareholder disposes of the shares under his name. In the case of repeat disposal of the shares, the bona fide acquisition of shares cannot directly refer to the relevant provisions on the bona fide acquisition of real estate.