Is there anyone who understands the law to help me analyze it?

You shall be solely responsible. Because A lends the article to B, B has the obligation to keep the item, and B lends the item to you, the obligation to keep the item is transferred to you, and no matter what you put into **, you have the responsibility of keeping it until you return it to B or lend it to others. Take it out of your desk and put it back in after reading it.

It can be seen that you know that C has been put back. At the time of C**, the responsibility for the custody of the item is transferred to C, but after C is put back, you continue to be obligated to keep it. Now that the item is missing, A has the right to demand that B return it, and B has the right to demand that you return it, and if you still find the item, you have to pay B and C should not be held responsible.

Unless there is evidence that it was C who stole the item.

In this case, "borrowing contract", "lack of right to dispose of" and "tort" were involved

a) A If liability for breach of contract is claimed, the subject of liability is B, but it is C who ultimately bears the liability for compensation.

Basis of liability: b. Violation of the borrower's obligation to properly keep and return the original goods in the borrowing contract. (The borrowing contract is only between A and B.) According to the relativity of debts, the parties to the contract may not claim liability for breach of contract against a third party other than the contract. ）

After B took possession of the goods according to A's consent, he lent the goods to you without A's permission, and C took the goods without your knowledge, and the borrowing behavior between B and you and C's infringement of the goods occurred successively.

1. The borrowing behavior between you and B: the act is not approved by A, and it is an act without the right to dispose of it, and if A does not continue to recognize the borrowing behavior afterwards, then the borrowing behavior between you will not be effective for A and has nothing to do with A. The borrowing is only effective between you and B, and B claims from you for breach of contract for the return of the original goods.

2. Tortious act between you and C: Although you left your belongings in your desk after leaving your seat, it should be said that you did not take proper storage measures and there is a risk that the belongings will be lost. However, if you take the goods without the consent of the person in possession (you), you assume the obligation to keep and return them.

And C's obligation to return should be active and effective, either to return the item to you in person, or to leave the item in a safer place, C did not hand it over to you in person after using the item, and knew that the valuables placed in the desk were at risk of loss, and did not take effective measures to choose another place of shelf, there was gross negligence. You assert tort liability against C.

Result: A recovers from B--- B recovers from you--- you recover from C--- and C bears the compensation.

2) A If tort liability is claimed, the subject of liability is B, C, and you. All three of you have miskept A's belongings, which constitutes an infringement. a. Tort liability can be asserted against any person.

3) C is the ultimate indemnifier, and if you are liable to B, you obtain the right of subrogation to recover from C. Or after the negotiation of the four people, it is directly borne by C.

b gave it to you with his own hand, but did not take it back from your own hand, then there is no legal b responsibility, the responsibility lies with you. If C borrowed it from you, but you were not there when you returned it, and then you lost it again, the responsibility is on C, and you are legally not responsible, and if C returns it to you personally, C is not responsible! In fact, there is already a custody contract between the loan and the return!

Judging from the content of the contract, it is also binding on Party A, and the contract specifies the rental period, that is, from this year to the next year. Therefore, the other party must also abide by it, and now the reason for Party A to terminate the contract does not establish an irresistible factor in civil law. Therefore, it is a breach of contract, and you can protect your own interests in accordance with the law and request the other party to pay compensation.

As for the rest of the provisions, since the principle of freedom of will is followed in the civil law, as long as they are not illegal clauses such as fraud, obvious unfairness, or material misunderstanding, they can be established, so they are valid except for Article 5, which is invalid.

It is recommended to negotiate a settlement, and if the negotiation fails, you can also sue, in short, you can ask the other party to compensate for reasonable losses and return the remaining rent.

Have the landlord sue you in court, or don't move.

You can choose not to move!! As long as you sign the contract and it hasn't expired, the landlord has no reason to let you go

The contract is actually legal and there is nothing wrong with it, but you can choose not to go and continue to live !! You can tell the landlord that you have a contract for one year, that you plan to live for a year, that the landlord has no reason to let you move out, and see what he tells you. If you really can't do it, use the law again

First of all, the contract is valid. When you signed the contract, you did not raise any objections, which means that you agreed to all the obligations set by the landlord to you, you agreed to the same intentions, and the contract was formed and effective. Moreover, the landlord has not violated the relevant regulations, and it is invalid if it is not established.

Note] Circumstances in which the contract is invalid:

1) The perpetrator does not have the capacity to act. Obviously, you and the landlord both have the capacity to enter into the contract.

2) The meaning is not free. When you entered into the contract, you were willing to do so, and there was no question of freedom or non-freedom. There's no way a landlord can coerce you with a knife, right?

3) Malicious collusion to damage the interests of the state, the collective or a third party. You haven't reached this yet, have you? Definitely not in line.

4) Concealing illegal purposes in a lawful form. You're in a normal lease relationship, it's not that complicated.

5) Violating the law or the public interest. Obviously, you have not violated any laws or matters of public interest.

Summary] Your contract is in effect. Only if the contract is valid, you can confidently say to the landlord that I have a contract with you. One-year period, can't let me move out. Otherwise, you will breach the contract and lose money. If I don't go, you won't be able to do anything to me.

Secondly, if you have signed a valid contract, you should abide by the contract. You don't have any breach of contract, and the landlord can't unilaterally terminate the contract. He doesn't have the right to let you move out.

Note] According to the Contract Law, the statutory conditions for the termination of a contract are:

1) The contract is simply not possible due to force majeure. There is nothing force majeure for you, it's just that the landlord himself is subjectively unwilling to rent.

2) A party expressly expresses or shows by its own conduct that it will not perform. Judging from your situation, you can take the initiative to terminate the contract, because the landlord clearly tells you that he is going to breach the contract, at this time, you have the right to terminate on your own initiative, but the question is that you obviously don't want to terminate the contract, then, according to your contract, just live.

3) One party delays the performance of the main debt and fails to perform it within a reasonable period of time after being reminded. This does not apply here.

4) One party delays the performance of debts or has other breaches of contract, resulting in the failure of the contract to achieve the purpose of the contract.

5) Other circumstances stipulated by law.

Summary] The landlord does not have the right to terminate the contract. You can do the other way around, and you can terminate the contract on your own initiative. But, at the same time, you also have the right to continue living with the contract you have signed.

Suggestion] If the landlord is not willing to borrow, you have to hold on, which is actually quite troublesome. If you insist, the landlord can't do anything. However, if you can find another place, try to ask the landlord to compensate for it, so that everyone can live comfortably without everyone having to get through the trouble.

In terms of losing money and continuing the lease, the landlord himself will weigh it. You might as well pay a higher amount of compensation. Ha.

Pay attention to gathering evidence.

1. For example, when he first said that your mother was nosy, your mother asked the neighbor who took out the garbage, and that neighbor could prove that they had a previous relationship with a conflict of interest;

2. Then look at the location of the incident and the man's route at the beginning, whether there is a probe, and you can retrieve the content of the video and save it as evidence;

3. If the man is directly prosecuted for intentionally injuring others, the police station's transcript may be obtained as evidence in court;

In fact, this kind of thing is generally mediation, first the police station mediates, and if the mediation fails, the police station will generally persuade you to give up or sue directly, and when you go to the court, you will mediate first, if you must insist, then sue to the end. When you go to the police station and go to your neighbor's house to ask questions, you can bring a recording device, and if others are not willing to help, at least you can keep some evidence in your favor at the end.

Hopefully, justice will finally be served.

In accordance with the law, anyone who beats an elderly person over the age of 60 shall be detained for 10-15 days and fined 500-1,000 yuan.

If the police do not perform their duties in accordance with the law, you can file a complaint with the inspection department of the local public security bureau.

In addition, it is advisable to make an appraisal of your mother's injuries and then file a lawsuit in court, the litigation fee is not high, the case is not complicated, and the victory is certain.

As far as the law is concerned, there is no other way.

If the police station does not deal with the case, you can take the other party to court and demand that the other party be held responsible.

Break the law and be careful of getting into trouble for no reason.

Resident Identity Card Law.

Article 16: Where any of the following acts are committed, the public security organs shall give a warning and impose a fine of not more than 200 yuan, and where there are unlawful gains, the unlawful gains shall be confiscated

1) Using false supporting materials to fraudulently obtain a resident identity card;

2) Renting, lending, or transferring a resident's identity card;

3) Illegally seizing another person's resident identity card.

1) Fraudulently using another person's resident identity card or using a fraudulently obtained resident identity card;

Breaking the law, suspected of evading several funds, you will be held responsible.

Clearly illegal. As a friend, you must help, but it is obviously a crime and must not be helped. Otherwise, you will not only harm your friends, but also harm yourself.

She wants to use you as a shield, don't give it to her. No matter when the ID card is handed over to others, and the identity information should not be disclosed at will!

You're done with your ID and he's got you to suffer.

Can't give. It's you who gave the penalty.

If you want to be a substitute for the dead, give it to her

Hello, if you are really involved in contract fraud, you should receive a summons from the court instead of such a text message notification.

There are generally two ways to serve a court summons:

1. Express forwarding service, you need to sign for it, and there will be legal documents such as the indictment inside.

2. The court commissioner will serve you, inform you of the details, and submit your indictment and other legal documents.

**In the case of the notice, it will also tell you the approximate situation of the lawsuit, who sued you, whether there is such a thing, you yourself know.

If it's just a **notice, starting with **000, and saying that there is a summons without saying anything, it is ****, and there are many such **behaviors now, disrupting the judicial order, don't be deceived.

You can call the police, or you can write down the **number, go to the public security department to report the case, or report the case immediately, and let the public security department check the fraud through the communication record**. Complaints and reports from the letter department.

Oh, I may want to put pressure on you, and after the appraisal is completed, the court is all letters.

Except for the non-public handling of minors, all of them are handled publicly, and you give him a ** if you solve it privately, it may be a **.

It's all fake, and if you don't understand the law, it's a collection.

1. The youngest son suddenly took out a will of the old man ten years ago, and the content of the will roughly said that all the inheritance of the old man after his death belongs to the younger son, and this will has legal effect. The old man's estate should go to the younger son, which is testamentary succession.

2. The two sons want to return the expenses shared by the old man**, which has no legal basis. Even if the old man gave the inheritance to the younger son, the other two sons also supported the old man, including the cost of medical treatment. Therefore, the two sons will not win the lawsuit against the younger son.

In this case, since the younger son admitted that the medical expenses were shared, it was negotiable. If there is no record of the transfer, the prosecution will also be settled through negotiation.

In addition, if you say that the youngest son has the will of the old man, it depends on whether the will is fair in the notary office, or whether there are other people present at the time of making the will (more than two people), if none of the above, the will is invalid. You can go to the court to file a lawsuit and ask the court to divide the estate.

The younger son has his father's property inheritance will, as long as it is true, obviously effective, it has legal effect and legal protection, as for the two elder brothers who want to withdraw their money, they will not win the lawsuit, and treating the father is the obligation of the child, even if the lawsuit is filed, it will not win.

But I think these children have no conscience, their parents raised themselves, what's wrong with treating their parents themselves? Is it because the property is left to the youngest son? There is no reason to be a human being. It's really a white-eyed wolf.

"In front of the police, I recounted what had happened"Do the police keep records? If what you're saying is supported by evidence, that's fine. The point is that it's hard to prove what you mean (it's better to have a witness testimony – the little boy, but it's hard for parents to generally not agree to their children going to court).

Or the policeman who went to the police can do it, but he can't testify as a whole witness)! Therefore, I will only tell you the worst-case scenario, that is, the fact you asserted is denied by the other party, according to Article 2 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases, if the victim is intentional or negligent in the occurrence or expansion of the same damage, the liability of the person liable for compensation may be reduced or exempted in accordance with the provisions of Article 131 of the General Principles of the Civil Law. However, if the infringer causes damage to others intentionally or through gross negligence, and the victim is only generally negligent, the liability of the person obligated to pay compensation shall not be reduced.

Paragraph 3 of Article 106 of the General Principles of the Civil Law provides that when determining the liability of the person obligated to compensate, if the victim is grossly negligent, the liability of the obligor may be reduced. (That's what you said, "I'm going forward and stay on the right side of the road (because there are often cars on this road, even cars going in the wrong direction) Next to the village Somewhere Because there are bricks on the side of the road, it has a certain impact on my vision, just riding over the brick wall, suddenly two children chased and ran to the road, I hurriedly braked, the child (male) in front of me reacted quickly and suddenly turned to avoid me and stopped, but the child (female) chasing behind refused to stop, I hit the child) The child went on the road (side) to make trouble, and the parents were grossly negligent when they got out of custody. But after all, the child was hit by you, no matter what your subjectivity is, the court will generally award you how much compensation you will pay according to the principle of fairness in the principle of tort attribution, unless the loss is very small, the victim's family is easy to bear, and you are indeed not at fault, in fact, this can only be an ideal situation.

The child's parental custody is then found to be unfavorably responsible. As for how much you can afford to take it, it depends on the strength of your evidence. So it is recommended that you take the scene of the incident, especially the stack of bricks, and then let the other party recognize that this is the scene of the incident, as long as the other party approves, you can assert:

1. There is an obstacle in the direction of travel, and the victim suddenly appears, and you are unprepared and subjectively not negligent. 2. The parents of the victim child are not effective in their guardianship and allow the child to play on the side of the road, and they should be held responsible. Hope it helps.