Civiltypicalcontractcaseanalysis-毕业论文翻译

1、Civil typical con tract case an alysisCon tract as an importa nt factor in the tran sacti on,the foundationof both the successfultransactionofgoods, but also to en sure progress n eeds in real life, the protecti on of the no rmal operatio n of the con tract is the com mon task of each legal departme

2、 nt & It ;&It; Civil Code& gt; >Protectio nof the con tract The role and statuscan not be igno red.A caseOne day in July 2008, Wang Zhang borrow ings twomillion and Zhang later Wang advanee a total of one million of other expenses. Aug. 2008 One day Wang Zhang produced a three-millio n IOU. produ

3、ce IOU sec ondday, Wang and Zhang sig nedan agreeme nton theman ageme nt ofthe vehicle. asked Zhang Wang vehiclescustody agreeme nt, the deadli ne to arrears repaid Wang two years later still do not have the econo mic stre ngth to pay off the arrears. Zhang the car, have returned to all. now Wang su

4、ed the reas on for Zhang paw n to the vehicle requireme ntsrevocati on of vehicleman ageme ntagreeme nt sig ned by both parties, the car retur ned, andialso to compe nsate for the econo mic loss of over a millio n.pla in tiff duri ng proceed ings in the local court to produce a vehicle man ageme nt

5、agreeme nt, purchase in voices and other evide nee to prove that the ownerof the vehicle isspent four million yuan to buy Wang and Zhang only requires the custody of the vehicle, not the vehicle to make any pledge, witnesses and testimony can prove is high there is the inten ti on of breach of con t

6、ract, that is to sell the vehicles of the two sides signed an agreement. defe ndantto the court both vehicleman ageme ntagreeme nt, and lOUs evide nee to prove that the two sides sig ned the pledge con tract, not a breach of con tract, and denied the testim ony of a wit ness.法院对该案 pieces in the tria

7、l, by the the collegiate bench way, form the view that:First view the agreeme nt as a partial in validity of the plaintiff s request to support the following reasons: first, pledged the vehicle in volved in the prohibited part of the content is not valid, and the sec ond, due to the pla in tiff to t

8、he defendant vehicle sale awareness and witnesses in court to testify, the defe ndant breach.Second view the agreeme nt as totally in effective,agreeme ntsin volv ingvehicles should bereturned to the plai ntiff for the followi ng reas ons: first, the agreeme nt in volv ing the two sides agreed the p

9、oint is not clear, it comes to therepayme ntperiod have acon tradicti on and vehicle restitutio n, the sec ond, the two sides also matters car liquidity prohibited, were agreed upon.The third view the agreeme nt as part in valid, but the deprivation of the plaintiff s claim for the following reas on

10、s: first, the two sides sig ned the agreeme nt about cars in the year after the vesti ng creditors should have a car such content is not allowed in the law, that this part of the liquid prohibited without legal protecti on, the sec ond agreeme ntbetwee n the defe ndantand the pla in tiff, theother i

11、ssues can be resolved by con tract law, the third wit ness testim ony evide nee lack .Links to free papers Downl oad Cen ter Second, the case studiesView from the merits of the case, the pla intiff and the defe ndant, the focus of con troversy as evide nee of the effective ness of the problem as wel

12、l as the questi on of thevalidity of the con tract,I think that the sec ond view iscorrect, for the followi ng reas ons:First, the con tract should be regarded as a partially effective because carefully study both studies content, can be found that the pla in tiff out of own debt to be repaid purpos

13、e, the agreementwas issued to the defendantshould be attributed to these con tract The hypothecati on con tract scope, I believe that the case in volves a con tract should bel ong to the pledge con tract., and both sides of the guaranteeperiod significant timeto define, that thedebt was paid off. ba

14、sis of guara ntees that the two sides guara ntee the time most long period should be two years, the time counting from the start of the repayment agreeme nt betwee n the two parties if the pla in tiffs do not have the econo mic ability of repayme nt after one year if the vehicle is owned by creditor

15、s all these elements are in volved, n amely conven ti ons liquid Guara ntee Law prohibited matters.Second, this con tract should be attributable to thepledge con tract, rather tha n bel onging to the custody con tract the plai ntiff in the court proceed ings that the agreement should be attributed t

16、o the custody of thecon tract, rather tha n bel ongingto the pledge con tract,but we can be draw n from the content of the con tract sig ned by both parties The purpose of the con tract to the debt to be fulfilled. therefore related to the content of this agreeme nt should be attributed to the pledg

17、e con tract. therefore the plai ntiffthat the two had sig ned theagreeme nt for the custody of the grounds of the con tract is not established.Third,the evide nee of thepla in tiff s lack ofeffective ness.Evide nee provided by the pla in tiff in thiscase, the only one on the issues of non-complia ne

18、e of the defe ndant, by an alyz ing not draw the defe ndant breach of the fact that pla in tiff provided testim ony to the court and wit nesses only side of the story directly defe ndants deny the evide neebecause the pla in tiffcan prove no otherrelates to prese nt evide nee to the evide nee to be

19、a cha in of evide nee. < ;&It; Civil Code > ;& gt; i n our provisi ons, un laterally evide nee able to direct the authe nticity of the case determ in ati on. evide nee of the pla in tiff in the prese nt case there are in adequacieslarger, that is not able todeterminethe question of the authentic

20、ityof breach ofeon tract by the defe ndan t.,eve n some of the evide nee may to some exte nt reflect the defe ndant aware ness youwant to sell the car, but in fact the defe ndant did not sellthe vehicle did not con stitute a real con tract, so that theevide neeprovidedby the pla in tiffstill not sup

21、portedChina s laws and regulations and no punishment for pris oners of con scie nee excessive provisi ons, the law does not require ideological stuff expressly provided that thereis evidenee that the defendant had with others, the existe nee of a con tractual relati on ship betwee n sales, direct or in direct harm to the econo mic in terests of the plaintiff, the plaintiff s request hope to get support .As can be see n from the above, the pla in