Help me find a civil case Please, urgent

The cases of civil juristic acts are as follows:

Plaintiff: A machinery limited liability company.

Defendant: Company B.

On August 24, 1992, Mr. Zhang, a purchaser of Company B, and Mr. Wang, a technician, went to a machinery limited liability company to negotiate the purchase of gear hobbing machines. After the on-site test operation, the two expressed satisfaction with the color, quality and performance of the machine. During the negotiation, the seller should pay the unit price of 30,600 yuan**.

Zhang and Wang could not decide, and the two sides reached the following oral agreement: the machinery company will not deal with this gear hobbing machine for the time being, and after Zhang and Wang return to Company B to report to the leadership, if they agree to buy, they will remit the money; Otherwise, it will be regarded as not buying, and the machinery company can deal with it separately. On October 31 of the same year, Company B remitted RMB 40,000 to the machinery company, indicating that it was the payment for the purchase of gear hobbing machines, round cars and bench drills.

Soon after the remittance of the payment, Company B re-studied and decided not to buy the machine, so it sent the purchaser Zhao to the machinery company to return the goods on November 6 of the same year.

After Zhao came to the machinery company, he did not meet with the general manager of the company, but entrusted a young worker to convey the return request to the general manager of the machinery company. After 20 days, there was still no reply, and Company B sent someone to the machinery company again to negotiate a refund and return the goods, but the machinery company refused in person. As a result, a dispute arose between the two companies.

Company B proposed that the remittance was the order money, and the gear hobbing machine had not yet been shipped, and the transaction had not been concluded. At the same time, the purpose of purchasing the gear hobbing machine is to produce the reducer, and later due to the change of the machinery company's production plan for the reducer, the equipment is no longer needed, so it should be refunded and returned.

Company B insisted on a refund and return of goods from the machinery company, and the machinery company clearly told Company B that the contract for the sale and purchase of gear hobbing machines had been established. The oral agreement between the parties on 24 August was the basis for the formation of the contract, and the remittance on 31 October was the condition for the conclusion of the contract agreed upon by the parties. Therefore, Company B's request for refund and return of goods is an act of unilaterally tearing up the agreement.

In order to clarify the validity of the legal acts of both parties and resolve the dispute, the machinery company filed a lawsuit with the people's court.

1. The sales contract for the transfer of ownership.

2. Company B is the defendant, because Company A has been merged by Company B at the time of the lawsuit, and Company B should bear the creditor's rights and debts of Company A in general.

3. Liu's lawsuit for liability for breach of contract, that is, the request for compensation for losses from Company B, can be supported by the court, because the statute of limitations for breach of contract is two years.

1. According to the provisions of the Privileges Law, Zhang obtained the property in good faith, and after the transfer registration was completed, Zhang had already obtained the ownership of the house, and Zhang had no obligation to return it.

2. The construction company only invited the cement plants A, B and C to make an offer, not an offer, so it did not need to bear the liability for breach of contract to companies B and C.

3. B shall be liable for compensation. Because B negotiated in bad faith under the pretext of purchase, he should bear the liability for negligence in contracting and compensate for losses.

According to this lawyer, the case was a fight dispute caused by a homestead dispute. Legally speaking, it was your uncle and your uncle who pulled and caused your uncle to be injured, so your uncle's loss should be borne by your uncle, but from the actual situation, your uncle pulled your uncle for the benefit of your family based on his relationship with you, and your family can't ask your uncle to bear the liability for compensation and ignore it!

Of course, in the process of mediation, you can argue that your uncle is at fault, and therefore your uncle should be held liable for his own damages. However, I would also like to remind you that your uncle's "cracks in the bones" may be fractures, and according to judicial practice, your uncle's injuries may constitute "minor injuries", if this is the case, it will be a bit troublesome for your uncle to insist on pursuing your uncle's criminal liability for intentional injury, although you are saying that your uncle hit your uncle in self-defense, but in the course of the lawsuit, there may be different opinions, even if your uncle clears the charge, he may pay the price.

Therefore, based on the experience of this lawyer, I sincerely suggest that your family has been building a house for thousands of years, and your family, especially your uncle's junior, should not intensify the contradictions, and say a few nice words to ask your uncle to understand is not only a requirement for building a harmonious society, but also the first choice for your family to make money!

This is not a civil dispute, this is a public security dispute.

Theoretically, your uncle needs to compensate the other party for the cost of the examination and **.

You don't need compensation.

1. For obvious civil compensation disputes, the provisions of Article 119 of the General Principles of the Civil Law shall apply.

2. During the dispute, your uncle and your own uncle started to grab it, and the uncle's injury was related to the uncle, and the uncle had to pay for the medical expenses, and the responsibility was shared according to the fault.