Case questions of economic law, who will help me analyze them

1. The court will not support the plaintiff's claim that the defendant and Yu pay the interest on the loan and overdue repayment, for the simple reason that Yu is not the debtor of the plaintiff Qian. Therefore, the plaintiff has no right to sue directly for payment of the loan and overdue interest. 2. Your question: We first understand the relevant provisions of Article 1 of the Contract Law on the preservation of contracts, the so-called preservation of contracts refers to the law to prevent damage to the creditor's claim due to the improper reduction or non-increase of the debtor's property, and allow the creditor to exercise the right of revocation or subrogation to protect its creditor's right.

In this case, the creditor's right of subrogation refers to the fact that if the debtor neglects to exercise its due creditor's rights and causes damage to the creditor, the creditor may request the people's court to subrogate the debtor's creditor's rights in its own name. Returning to the question you mentioned above, we must note that the exercise of subrogation is a request by the creditor for a third party to perform the debt to the debtor, not for the third party to perform the debt to itself, so the plaintiff's claim will certainly not be supported by the court.

The first request will be upheld by the court because of the creditor's right of subrogation, and the second request will not be upheld by the court because it is a creditor-debtor relationship of a personal nature, and no one other than the person may be subrogated.

1. The reason of A and B is unreasonable, the economic law stipulates that the directors of the company shall not operate the same business as the company or engage in activities that damage the interests of the company by themselves or with others.

2. The behavior of the board of directors is appropriate, and the economic law stipulates that the directors of the company shall not operate the same business as the company by themselves or with others, otherwise, the income belongs to the company, and the profit is huge, and the sentence shall be fixed-term imprisonment of less than 3 years or criminal detention, and if the amount is particularly huge, it shall be fixed-term imprisonment of 3 7 years.

1. Ding is responsible for repaying the loan.

Basis] Article 18 of the Guarantee Law:

Where the parties stipulate in the guarantee contract that the guarantor and the debtor shall be jointly and severally liable for the debt, it is a joint and several liability guarantee.

If the debtor of the joint and several liability guarantee fails to perform the debt upon the expiration of the debt performance period specified in the main contract, the creditor may require the debtor to perform the debt, and may also require the guarantor to bear the guarantee liability within the scope of the guarantee.

Article 19 of the Guarantee Law:

Where the parties have not agreed on the method of guarantee or the agreement is not clear, they shall bear the guarantee liability in accordance with the joint and several liability guarantee.

2. Ding should repay 20,000 yuan.

Basis] Article 30 of the Interpretation of the Security Law: During the guarantee period, if the creditor and the debtor make changes to the quantity, price, currency, interest rate and other contents of the main contract, without the consent of the guarantor, if the debtor's debt is reduced, the guarantor shall still bear the guarantee liability for the modified contract; If the debtor's debt is aggravated, the guarantor shall not be liable for the aggravated part.

3. Ding can recover from Wang.

Basis] Article 31 of the Guarantee Law: After the guarantor assumes the guarantee liability, it has the right to recover from the debtor.

At present, Mr. Wang is engaged in a small commodity wholesale business in Nanji Street, and Mr. Liu is engaged in a clothing business in China World Trade City. One day, Mr. Liu called Mr. Wang, saying that he urgently needed 100,000 yuan to go to Guangdong to buy clothing, and asked if he could help solve it? Mr. Wang promised to deliver it the next morning.

Mr. Liu immediately purchased a ticket to Guangdong and notified the ** merchant in Guangdong that in addition to the original reservation of 100,000 yuan of goods, an additional 200,000 yuan of goods were added. The next morning, Mr. Liu called Mr. Wang several times, but no one answered. It wasn't until noon that Mr. Wang answered**, saying that he had drunk too much last night and had just woken up, and his wife had gone out to deliver goods again, and the money could not be withdrawn, so he could not lend you money, and apologized.

Mr. Liu had no choice but to refund the ticket and notify the ** merchant in Guangdong to cancel the additional order. As a result, Mr. Liu lost 400 yuan in refund fees and Guangdong ** merchants deducted 20,000 yuan in fines for canceling additional orders, and Wang and Liu had a dispute.

Question: 1. Mr. Liu believes that the two parties have reached an agreement on the loan matter, the loan contract has been established and taken effect, and Wang should bear the liability for breach of contract, in addition to compensating for the loss of refund and the loss of fines imposed by the merchant, he should also compensate him for the operating profit of 40,000 yuan after repurchasing 200,000 yuan of goods.

Is this claim sustainable?

2. Mr. Wang admitted to borrowing money, but because he was drunk and mishap, he did not mean to do so and did not agree to compensate for the loss. Is this claim sustainable?

3. Mr. Wang agreed to compensate for the loss of the refund ticket and the loss of the fine of the merchant, and said that it was legal to do so. Is this claim sustainable?

4. If Wang and Liu agree in writing to borrow money and stipulate in the agreement that "this agreement shall take effect upon the signing of both parties", should Mr. Wang be liable for Mr. Liu's claim in "1" above?