Property Law Cases, Property Law Case Analysis?

Personally, I believe that there is a contractual relationship between Li Ming and the hotel, and the content of the "precautions" presented by the hotel is actually a standard contract clause and an exemption clause. It is more appropriate to classify this case as a contract dispute. Isn't it a bit difficult to explain it with property law?

The following is the treatment made in accordance with the Contract Law:

1. Definition of standard clauses and obligations of users.

Article 39 of the Contract Law stipulates that: "Where standard clauses are used to conclude a contract, the party providing the standard clauses shall determine the rights and obligations between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness, and take reasonable measures to draw the attention of the other party to the clauses exempting or limiting its liability, and explain the clauses in accordance with the requirements of the other party."

A standard clause is a clause that is pre-drafted by the parties for reuse and not negotiated with the other party at the time of entering into a contract. ”

Li Ming's stay at the hotel was tantamount to entering into a service contract with the hotel, and the content of the "precautions" presented by the hotel in this case complied with the provisions of the above-mentioned law and was a standard clause. If the "exemption clause" is obvious enough and the hotel has made Li Ming clearly aware of it, it can be considered that the hotel has fulfilled its obligations as a user of the standard clause.

2. Invalidity of standard terms.

Article 40 of the Contract Law stipulates that: "If a standard clause falls under the circumstances specified in Articles 52 and 53 of this Law, or if the party providing the standard clause exempts itself from liability, increases the liability of the other party, or excludes the main rights of the other party, the clause shall be invalid." ”

Article 52: "The contract shall be invalid under any of the following circumstances:

1) One party concludes a contract by means of fraud or coercion, harming the interests of the state;

2) Malicious collusion, harming the interests of the state, the collective, or a third party;

3) Concealing illegal purposes in a lawful form;

4) Harming the public interest;

5) Violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations. ”

Article 53: "The following exemption clauses in the contract are invalid:

1) Causing personal injury to the other party;

2) Intentionally or grossly negligently causing damage to the other party's property. ”

The hotel provides accommodation for passengers and has the obligation to protect the personal and property safety of passengers. In this case, as soon as Li Ming woke up, he found that the camera, mobile ** and cash 3,100 yuan and other financial belongings he was carrying were stolen, and the door of the house was open. Obviously, the hotel failed to fulfill its due obligations and was grossly negligent.

Therefore, it is in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Contract Law, and therefore the exemption clause cannot be a reason for the hotel to refuse compensation.

This case should be a contract law case and should be handled as a contract dispute.

Who's out of this question, too low. Will be the following:

According to the clear facts of the title, there is a house that belongs to the joint property of Zhou and the royal father and wife (it is necessary to investigate the property registration and marital status before death); 2. The royal father did not have a will before his death; 3. There are no other successors in this case; 4. Hypothesis: The type of co-ownership is co-ownership by shares, and the husband and wife each account for 50%.

Answer: 1. Zhou should enjoy the rights of 3 4 of 5 houses; 2. The real estate jointly owned by Zhou and Wang is the share of the royal father's estate, that is, 50% of the 5 houses, the reason is, of course, because of the inheritance relationship, and the inheritance is not convenient to divide; 3. There is no "obligor of ownership" in property relations. . . If the final property co-ownership relationship (co-ownership by shares) is finally formed, it can be implemented in accordance with the relevant rights and obligations of the Civil Code on co-ownership by shares; 4. Wang's behavior is an infringement against Zhou; 5. This case should be adjudicated in accordance with the law, but the key point of the review is what the property relationship between Zhou and the royal father and wife is during their lifetimes.

The statement in the title that "Wang registered the change of property rights as his own through an acquaintance without Zhou's consent" does not explain the specific basis for the change of registration, so it is impossible to judge whether the lawsuit should intervene in the administrative litigation of the registration act.

Legal analysis: The relevant laws and regulations are in accordance with the "Code of the People's Republic of China".

Legal basis: "Civil Law of the People's Republic of China".

Article 205: This Part regulates civil relationships arising from the ownership and use of things.

Article 206 The State adheres to and improves the basic socialist economic systems, such as the common development of the economy under various forms of ownership, with distribution according to work as the mainstay, the coexistence of multiple modes of distribution, and the socialist market economic system. The state consolidates and develops the public sector of the economy and encourages, supports, and guides the development of the non-public sector of the economy. The State implements a socialist market economy and guarantees the equal legal status and development rights of all market entities.

1, The watch should be returned to Ding. The watch was acquired by a third party in good faith, so C's legitimate rights and interests should be safeguarded. A should request B for the return of the unjust enrichment, and if the original item is not available, B should compensate A for the corresponding loss.

1 In this case, Lidin had ultimate ownership because the watch was given as a gift by her boyfriend for a market purchase. In this case, A's watch was disposed of by B without authorization, and B should bear all the losses caused to A by selling the watch. Because B's act of selling watches without A's permission is an act of no authority, B subjectively intentionally causes infringement against A, so he should bear full responsibility.

When C bought the watch, he did not know that B was not the owner, and C also paid for the market of the watch**, so C's act of buying the watch was established as a bona fide acquisition, and the law should protect it. Ding's loss should be borne by E, because E stole Ding's watch and caused the infringement. D may request protection of his lawful rights and interests through attached civil litigation.

2 Company A's claim could not be upheld by the court because Wang had reason to believe that the car was Zhang's private property when he purchased the car. Therefore, Wang's behavior should be established as a bona fide acquisition under the civil law, and Company A can require Zhang to bear the return of the price obtained from the sale of the car, because the ownership of the car belongs to Company A, and it can protect its own interests through civil tort litigation.

1。The relationship between A and B for the vase is only entrusted to the custody, and does not involve ownership (the core of property rights). Therefore, A has the right to sell to C, and there is no question of "false representation".

The relationship between C and D is a mortgage of real rights, and the real rights belong to non-legally registered goods, and the mortgage is validly established after the voluntary agreement between the two parties.

2。If the transfer of property rights of the house is determined by the laws and regulations to be registered to take effect, the mortgage registration shall be implemented in the mortgage process so that the real right is in a restricted state. However, the mortgage relationship between A and the bank was not registered after the agreement was formed, and the agreement was still in the process of not being able to fully implement the statutory process until the bank discovered that A was unable to pay off the debt, so the mortgage relationship between the bank and A could not be established.

The whole process of establishing and implementing the agreement between A and C has been completed, and the agreement transfer relationship has been established. Therefore, B can acquire the property right, and the house is owned by B. The bank can sue for breach of contract and wilful fraud to recover the loan.

**: The mortgage or transfer of the house is based on the agreement and other relevant documents, and the "implementation fact" is the legal basis for the confirmation of the transfer of real rights. In the case of statutory administrative provisions, the transfer of administrative ownership documents is the basis for the "facts of implementation".

In other words, the "facts of implementation" are the elements that determine the confirmation of the mortgage or transfer relationship. The agreement is only evidence to examine whether the facts of implementation express the unanimous will of both parties.

Some people believe that the right in rem can be separated from the right of ownership, and the signing of an assignment or mortgage agreement is a separation of the right of ownership from the right in rem. I believe that ownership can only be limited and not separated from property rights. The two cases are different in the case of signing the contract and the registration of the certificate, and the certificate of property is based on the transfer of the certificate in the case of administrative regulations.

In practice, in the case of economic loss caused by the failure to execute the agreement after the occurrence (which falls within the scope of contract law), the losing party has the right to sue on the grounds of breach of contract, but not on the ground of the ownership of the object of the agreement. This is consistent with the spirit and treatment of property law.

(1) The mortgage contract between A and B is valid. Because the use of audio as collateral does not stipulate in law that registration is required, it is valid if it is not registered.

2) The pledge contract between A and C is also valid. If the two parties have a written note and actually transfer the possession of the pledge, the pledge guarantee contract shall take effect in accordance with law.

3) D's lien has priority, followed by C's pledge, and finally A's unregistered mortgage. The reason why A is the last is because A's mortgage has not been voluntarily registered with the notary department, and it lacks publicity power.

Main legal basis: Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Guarantee Law. The Guarantee Law interprets article 79.

Let me teach you a mantra: the order of mortgage repayment, two is better than the principle. The two advantages refer to the superiority of the first registered over the later registration, and the superiority of the registered over the unregistered.

It should be noted that not all property mortgages must be registered, only immovable property and some special movable property laws make it mandatory to register, as for most chattel mortgages, registration is completely voluntary, of course, unregistered may suffer, because the registered chattel mortgage is better than the unregistered chattel mortgage. The audio is movable property and is valid if it is not registered, but because B did not request registration, B's mortgage cannot be used against the pledge of a bona fide third party, C. The pledge contract between A and C is valid due to the transfer of the pledge.

Long live the lien forever!

1. The mortgage contract between A and B comes into effect. 2) The pledge contract between A and C is also valid.

3 D has priority.

Answer: 1. B's behavior is superficial, the store is the joint property of both parties, and the disposal should be agreed by both parties. However, without A's consent, B lied to C about the search, because the two parties were husband and wife, and A was working in a foreign country, so C had reason to believe that the disposition of the socks house was a consequence of the consent of both parties, so the house sale contract signed by B and C was valid.

After the sale and purchase of the house, the two parties went through the procedures for the transfer of ownership of the house, and the ownership of the house was originally jointly owned by A and B. 2. B shall be liable to A. The part of the purchase price that belongs to A should be returned to A.

Acts B are legal, and the ownership of the imitation house before the sale is jointly owned by the husband and wife, and after the sale, it is C, because the ownership of the immovable property is transferred through transfer registration.

B is not liable for C, and the solution is: divorce can be litigated, the court has the means to serve the complaint, and the division of property needs to be mediated by the courtAnother: The ownership of the house has been transferred, and the unaccompanied Qingfa can only be compensated financially.

B's behavior is not right**, the property is owned by C, A and B are not divorced, no compensation is required, divorce is another matter!

1. According to the provisions of the Security Law, the establishment of a mortgage requires a written contract signed by both the mortgagor and the mortgagee. If the immovable property is used as collateral, the mortgage registration is also required. So, both mortgages are valid.

2. The mortgagee has the priority right to be repaid.

3. When the mortgage is realized, the one registered first shall have priority.

Abstract of Typical Case Analysis of Property Law: There are some typical problems in the development of the real estate and property management market, and the "building ownership system" in the Property Law will have a far-reaching impact on the protection of the rights and interests of owners and the promotion of the standardized management of property management enterprises. As an important law for adjusting property relations, it plays a major role in clarifying the ownership of property, rationally utilizing and protecting property, and maintaining economic order.

In particular, the "building ownership system" in the property law will play an irreplaceable role in protecting the rights and interests of property owners and regulating and adjusting the behavior of property management enterprises. With the acceleration of China's urban modernization process, a large number of residential quarters have been built in various places, and a building often cannot be owned by one person or several people, but can only be divided into different parts and owned by a large number of households. There are three aspects to the differentiated ownership of buildings:

The building distinguishes the owner's ownership of the exclusive part, and the building distinguishes the owner's co-ownership of the common part (which includes the right of joint use and the right of exclusive use) The building distinguishes the owner's membership rights. 1. Several typical problems existing in residential communities The author believes that several typical problems existing in residential communities can be summarized into the following three typical cases. Case 1:

In 2003, A renovated the bathroom, and soon after, with the consent of the property management company, changed the sewer pipes in the unit building due to poor drainage. However, due to improper construction, there was leakage in the sewer pipe altered by A during use, and the leaking water partially damaged the decoration of B's house downstairs. B negotiated with A and the property management company for many times without success, so he sued A and the property management company together.