How should this case be handled on the merits?

Tenant A subleases the house to B, and while B is on the lease, B's son plays with fire, causing a fire that burns down the property in the house of neighbors C and D. Now C and D have filed separate lawsuits, demanding that A compensate for their losses. Upon investigation, B's whereabouts were unknown shortly after the incident.

Differences] In the trial of this case, there are the following views:

1. Treat it as an adjacent legal relationship and order A to bear responsibility.

2. A is not the infringer and is not liable, but B is liable.

3. A and B constitute joint infringement of the right to defend and bear joint and several liability.

4. If the house rented by A to B has a fire hazard or is at fault for the occurrence of the fire, it shall bear the liability for compensation equivalent to its fault.

5. A bears supplementary liability for compensation, which is divided into two types: A bears the supplementary liability for all damages and cannot recover from B; A bears supplementary liability equivalent to his fault and has the right to recover from B.

Comment] The author agrees with the second point of view of the fifth type, that is, A bears supplementary liability equivalent to his fault and has the right to recover from B.

This case is a dispute over compensation for property damage caused by negligence tort, and when determining whether and what kind of liability A should bear for compensation, the way of thinking of interest weighing should be applied and handled in accordance with the principle of fairness. Because after A subleases the public residential house to B, he has lost the right to use and control the house during the sublease period, and the property damage in the houses of neighbors C and D is caused by the fire caused by B's son playing with fire, that is, there is no direct causal relationship between the consequences of the damage to the property of C and D and the subleased house of A. Therefore, A did not breach the contract or tort for the occurrence of the fire and the property damage in the houses of neighbors C and D, and should not be liable for tort fault.

However, A, as a subtenant of the house, receives income by subleasing the house; At the same time, B's whereabouts are unknown after the incident. Therefore, if the imbalance of interests between the two parties is not taken into account, the rejection of C and D's claims on the ground that A is not liable for tort will cause C and D to expand the scope of their losses because they have not received judicial relief after suffering property losses in the house and paying a certain amount of litigation costs, which is contrary to the principle of fairness in China's civil law. Therefore, in the case where the property interests of C and D are damaged but there is no actual remedy, applying the way of thinking of interest measurement, after making a substantive judgment on the interest relationship between the subjects behind the rights, and having A bear the supplementary liability for compensation, is in essence to balance the conflict of interests between the parties in accordance with the principle of fairness under special circumstances, and realize an important embodiment of the value spirit of the law, and such a result is both legal and reasonable.

A and B shall return the proceeds to C. According to Article 61 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, after a civil act is confirmed to be invalid or revoked, the property acquired by the parties as a result of the act shall be returned to the party who suffered the loss.

In this case, if the customer can assert that Wang is the appearance of the cover-up.

However, if your company can prove that the customer was negligent or knew that Wang had no right to enter into a contract with Wang when entering into a contract, Hongbi's claim that the customer required the company to perform the contract could not be supported.

In theory, there may be some differences in the practice of the group.

Hello know how to do! Wang has been engaged in commodity procurement business as a purchaser of the company, and the customer has reason to believe that it has the right to take advantage of the balance, and Wang signed a commodity procurement contract with the customer in the name of the company to be valid, and the company should perform its contractual obligations. Wang's behavior is an apparent act in accordance with Article 49 of the Contract Law, and his ** behavior is valid.

Lawyer Niu Jinguo.

It is handled separately and dealt with first.

The use of "separate case handling" mainly includes the following clear knowledge: First, the criminal suspect is at large and has not been brought into the case, and the facts of the other suspects' crimes have been clarified, or the time of detention has arrived, so they have no choice but to use "separate case handling" for the suspect at large in the letter of approval of arrest or the prosecution opinion. Second, because it was difficult to obtain evidence or the workload of handling the case was large, it was temporarily put on hold to do other work, but this shelving was only a few months or even longer, and when the time period for the litigation of this case came, it had to be "handled in a separate case" for suspects who had not yet ascertained the facts of the crime.

In other words, for some reason, this case needs to deal with the ascertained facts first. In other words, the separate case was handled relatively first.

"Handling of separate cases" refers to situations in which in the course of handling a criminal case, where some criminal suspects suspected of a joint crime or who are implicated in the case cannot or are not handled in the same case with other criminal suspects in the same case due to special provisions in the law or the existence of special circumstances in the case, but are separated from the case and handled separately or in conjunction with other cases. The handling of separate cases is widely used in the three organs of the public security, procuratorate, and law, and is scattered in the public security organs' applications for approval of arrest, prosecution opinions, procuratorates' indictments, and court criminal judgments. However, China's relevant laws do not provide for "separate case handling".

The use of "separate cases" by the public security organs is mainly based on work experience. There are two bases for the procuratorate's use of "separate case handling", one is work experience, and the other is the theoretical viewpoint in the reform of judicial documents. The basis for the court's use of "handling the case separately" is the procuratorate's indictment.

Under normal circumstances, the "separate case handling" of the procuratorate and the court is a continuation of the "separate case handling" of the public security organs.

Separate case handling refers to situations in which in the course of handling a criminal case where some criminal suspects suspected of a joint crime or who are implicated in the case cannot or are not handled in the same case due to special provisions in the law or the existence of special circumstances in the case, but are separated from the case and handled separately or in conjunction with other cases.

According to article 2 of the "Guiding Opinions on the Application of Planning for the 'Separate Handling of Criminal Cases'", "Handling of Separate Cases with Residual Considerations" as used in these Opinions refers to situations where some criminal suspects suspected of committing a joint crime or implicated in the case cannot or are not appropriate to be handled separately from the case or in conjunction with other cases in the course of handling a criminal case, but are separated from the case or handled separately or in conjunction with other cases due to special provisions in the law or the existence of special circumstances in the case.