Case Study of Property Law 2 Case Study Questions and Answers of Economic Law and Property Law

1. The mortgage between A and B is valid, and registration is not a requirement for validity.

2. The mortgage between father A and father B is invalid, and the facilities of the school shall not be mortgaged.

3. The legal relationship between A and C is the legal relationship of loan and pledge, which are valid.

4. The relationship between propylene and Ding is a processing contract.

5. In the guarantee, D may be compensated first.

6. In the end, the ownership belonged to E, and Ding's lien was extinguished due to the loss of possession of the painting.

1) The mortgage relationship between A and B is valid. The Civil Code stipulates that if the movable property is mortgaged, the mortgage right shall be established when the mortgage contract takes effect. In this case, a mortgage contract was entered into between A and B, and the collateral was not a property that must be registered under the Civil Code.

Therefore, the mortgage relationship between A and B is valid.

2) The mortgage relationship between father A and father B is invalid. Public secondary school buildings are educational facilities and may not be mortgaged in accordance with the law.

3) The legal relationship between A and C is pledge; is effective. The Civil Code stipulates that the pledgor and the pledgee shall enter into a pledge contract in writing. The pledge contract shall take effect when the pledge is handed over to the pledgee for possession.

In this case, A borrowed another $50,000 from C and pledged the set of ancient paintings, and after the two parties signed the pledge contract, A immediately delivered the ancient paintings to C.

4) The legal relationship between C and D is a processing contract, and C is in arrears of repair fees; At the same time, a legal relationship of retention in custody was formed between C and Ding.

A lives on the second floor of a commercial and residential building, and the first floor is a shop, and the property is owned by the developer. One of the shops was leased by B to open a chess and card room. People in the chess and card room often play mahjong all night, A and the child are often woken up by the sound of shuffling cards downstairs in the middle of the night and cannot sleep, A repeatedly finds B to ask for the closure of the chess and card room or to limit the time of playing mahjong at night, or to take measures to reduce the noise.

B agreed, but there was no improvement. As a result, A sued B to the court, demanding that the time spent playing mahjong be limited.

Q: Can A's request be supported? What kind of claim in rem is A exercising? Explain why.

Answer: A's request can be supported. Because A's house and B's chess and card room are upstairs and downstairs, they are adjacent to each other by two adjacent real estates.

Because the noise in the chess and card room affected the rest of A and his family, it violated the rights of the neighboring party. According to the provisions of the Property Law, the owner of immovable property rights shall not dispose of solid waste or discharge harmful substances such as noise and light in violation of national regulations. The right to claim in rem exercised by A is specifically manifested in the request to remove the obstruction.

According to the provisions of the Property Law, the right holder may request the unlawful infringer to remove the obstruction or request the people's court to order the infringer to bear the responsibility for removing the obstruction with respect to the rights that are being harmed.

(1) The mortgage contract between A and B is valid. Because the use of audio as collateral does not stipulate in law that registration is required, it is valid if it is not registered.

2) The pledge contract between A and C is also valid. If the two parties have a written note and actually transfer the possession of the pledge, the pledge guarantee contract shall take effect in accordance with law.

3) D's lien has priority, followed by C's pledge, and finally A's unregistered mortgage. The reason why A is the last is because A's mortgage has not been voluntarily registered with the notary department, and it lacks publicity power.

Main legal basis: Articles 41, 42 and 43 of the Guarantee Law. The Guarantee Law interprets article 79.

Let me teach you a mantra: the order of mortgage repayment, two is better than the principle. The two advantages refer to the superiority of the first registered over the later registration, and the superiority of the registered over the unregistered.

It should be noted that not all property mortgages must be registered, only immovable property and some special movable property laws make it mandatory to register, as for most chattel mortgages, registration is completely voluntary, of course, unregistered may suffer, because the registered chattel mortgage is better than the unregistered chattel mortgage. The audio is movable property and is valid if it is not registered, but because B did not request registration, B's mortgage cannot be used against the pledge of a bona fide third party, C. The pledge contract between A and C is valid due to the transfer of the pledge.

Long live the lien forever!

1. The mortgage contract between A and B comes into effect. 2) The pledge contract between A and C is also valid.

3 D has priority.