There is no need to worry about people who understand the law 40

It depends on what state the original contract is in now, if both parties have revoked the original contract, then you can ask to check out, if the original contract has not been revoked, then the original contract is deemed to be valid, although you did not agree to the original, but you have signed, it has legal efficiency, naturally it can not be changed at will, nor can it be unilaterally breached, once the breach of contract, you must bear the liability for breach of contract. In other words, if you have already cancelled the contract, you can ask for a refund, and if not, you have to continue to perform the contract.

If you have already signed a contract, you can't change the content of the contract at will, and you can cancel the contract and claim compensation the first time!

It is possible to request the termination of the purchase contract and claim compensation.

This is because once a contract is signed, it cannot be changed at will, and even if it is to be changed, both parties must reach an agreement. After you sign a purchase contract with the developer, the developer increases the price, which is a substantial change in the contract, and you have the right to terminate the contract and ask the developer to compensate you for the interest on the bank deposit for the same period that you have paid for the house.

Once the contract is signed, it should be strictly respected and cannot be terminated or changed at will, so you cannot check out unless there are other conditions, because checking out means terminating the contract.

At present, what you have to do is to ask the price department and the affordable housing management department to disclose the calculation basis of the housing **, and the legal basis for the disclosure has been requested is the ** Information Disclosure Regulations. If it is publicly found that the property is not legal, the house can be revoked on the grounds of fraud, or the price of the house can be reduced.

The Beijing procuratorate replied to you:

The issues you are talking about are mainly related to the issues of justifiable defence, excessive defence and unjustified defence.

First of all: if these people are also holding knives and pose a certain threat to your life, then you resist and stab a person to death, then you are justified in self-defense, and I am talking about the premise that these people are tortfeasors.

Second: If these people are just punching and kicking, and there are only two or three people, and they are just scaring you and scaring you, and they beat you slightly, then you may be stabbing one to death with a knife, and you will be overly defensive, then you will bear the criminal responsibility of intentionally causing death by intentionally causing death, and you will be sentenced.

Third: If the other party is a lot of people, and the other party is barehanded, you are holding a knife on your side, and the two sides are evenly matched, then if you stab a person to death with a knife, then you have to bear the criminal responsibility of intentionally causing death, but there is no excessive defense at this time.

If you are told the theory of justifiable defense and excessive defense, it will be more difficult for you to understand, and the above is some simple analysis. Hope you can help you, if it's not clear, add questions.

It also depends on whether they beat you to death, and if so, then it is legitimate defense, and if not, there may be excessive defense, and you will be held legally responsible.