A legal question 20

The determination of "material misunderstanding" is a rather vague concept in judicial practice. There is no specific definition in the General Principles of Civil Law. For ordinary consumer goods, due to the very large changes and differences in the market, it is difficult to make a determination of "material misunderstanding" during the trial of the case.

Even if the store provided conclusive evidence that the item was not likely to be sold at any reduced price at the time, the ** was indeed an omission, and in view of the store's own negligence in this regard, it is generally difficult to support a request for a full return. In judicial practice, in order to reflect the fairness of substantive rights and interests, the court usually allows the parties to settle the case through negotiation and settlement or mediation. Therefore, a partial refund of the difference may be a more practical outcome, although from a legal point of view it may be unsatisfactory to some people.

The store may request to rescind the contract in accordance with the Contract Law because there is a material misunderstanding in the expression of intent at the time of conclusion of the contract, and the party with the right of revocation has not exercised the right of revocation within one year from the date on which the party with the right of revocation knew or should have known the reason for revocation. The property acquired as a result of the sale contract after the revocation shall be returned; where it cannot be returned or it is not necessary to do so, compensation shall be made at a discounted price. The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses suffered thereby, and if both parties are at fault, they shall each bear corresponding responsibility.

For the customer, because of the store's mistake, it constitutes unjust enrichment for him, and it is normal to return it. That is, to return the thing and receive the price, or to pay the difference.

Shops are definitely available.

If there is a large gap between the wrong mark and the truth, and the mark is true, this is called a major misunderstanding in civil law, and the store can apply for the cancellation of the sales contract with the customer within one year from the date of the occurrence of the loss, but the price already collected must be returned.

No, the two parties pay the money in one hand for the sale, and after the delivery of the other hand, it is equivalent to the formation of a contract system. If the merchant wants to return, it is a breach of contract.

I don't think the store can take back its losses because their buying and selling relationship has already been established, which is not suitable for the big misunderstanding they are talking about. There is also no unjust enrichment for consumers that is legitimate

This case is a case of material misunderstanding, the contract is a voidable contract, but the choice is in the hands of the customer, and the customer can choose to return the goods or pay the difference.

In the case of a typical material misunderstanding, the seller may request to withdraw from the contract, but shall bear other losses of the customer.

A typical case of material misunderstanding is where the consumer unjustly enriches so that the merchant can recover his own losses.

1. The fault lies in the administrative punishment, the object of the administrative punishment is the administrative counterpart, and the relevant person in charge should be an administrative sanction;

2. The fault lies in the Administrative Licensing Law, the scope of application of the Administrative Licensing Law only includes the establishment and implementation of administrative licensing, but does not include the examination and approval of personnel, finance, foreign affairs and other matters of other administrative organs or public institutions directly managed by the relevant administrative organs.

3. According to the provisions of the Administrative Licensing Law, the administrative organ shall impose administrative penalties in accordance with the law for the administrative license obtained by the licensee by fraud, bribery and other improper means. The applicant shall not apply for the administrative license again within 3 years.

1.If the Animal and Plant Inspection and Epidemic Bureau of a certain district fails to collect license fees in accordance with the statutory standards, it shall impose an administrative penalty on its direct person in charge - wrong. Administrative punishment is against the administrative counterpart.

Administrative sanctions are imposed on civil servants. 2.The Administrative Licensing Law is not applicable to the approval of the passport of a university teacher going abroad.

Wrong. The Administrative Licensing Law applies. Similar to the lawyer's qualification certificate or passport to go abroad, it is a kind of administrative license.

3.After a company has had its fireworks production license revoked through bribery, it is not allowed to apply for the license again for one year – the mistake is one year. I'm not good at administrative law.

I forgot how many years it was. Anyway, fraud and bribery are not the same as usual. Long time.

It seems that I can't stretch it for three years.

2. A error. Reason: When the request is made by shareholders who account for more than one-tenth of the company's shares, not by the number of people.

3. A error. Reason: A person can refer to both a natural person shareholder and a legal person shareholder.

4. A error. Reason: In the initiation and establishment of a joint-stock company, as long as the initial capital contribution is not less than 20% of the registered capital, it can be established, and the subsequent part shall be paid in full within 2 years of the establishment of the company; In the fundraising establishment, the promoter only needs to subscribe for no less than 35% of the company's shares and can be established, and then the rest is raised from the public.

5. A error. Reason: Article 52 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that the board of supervisors shall include shareholder representatives and an appropriate proportion of employee representatives of the company.

6. A error. Reason: Article 128 of China's Company Law clearly stipulates that China does not allow the issuance of non-par shares.

7. A error. Reason: It should be "60 days", see Article 75 of the Company Law.

8. B is correct.

9. A error. Reason: With regard to the decision on the issuance of bonds by a wholly state-owned company, article 67 of the Company Law clearly stipulates that the decision can only be made by the state-owned assets supervision and administration authority of a wholly state-owned company.

10. A error. Reason: The specific convening procedures and voting methods of the company's shareholders' meeting are stipulated in the company's articles of association, which is a manifestation of autonomy of will.