Ask a civil law case!! 20

should be paid, the behavior of the magazine is wrong.

Case: How can it be said that the diversion of people and vehicles can be changed

Before buying a house, Zhou and other owners saw in brochures, sand tables, advertising films and other promotional materials that the community they purchased was equipped with people-vehicle diversion facilities and an outdoor swimming pool.

But later the owners learned that in the construction plan filed by the developer Tianfu Company with the relevant departments, the community was not a diversion of people and vehicles, and Tianfu Company was after passing the completion acceptance to create an "illusion" of diversion of people and vehicles by covering the ground parking spaces with turf, and the relevant departments found out about this situation, and immediately ordered Tianfu Company to rectify and restore the ground parking spaces. As for the "outdoor swimming pool", it is an illegal building and cannot be used.

When the owner approached Tianfu Company to negotiate, he was told that the "Commercial Housing Pre-sale Contract" stipulated that it reserved the right to modify the layout of the community and that the content contained in the promotional materials was not included as an integral part of the contract.

Interpretation: The living space of the "overlord clause" is getting smaller and smaller

Judge Liu Jia of Shanghai No. 1 Intermediate People's Court said that after the implementation of the Civil Code, Article 496 of the Civil Code stipulates the circumstances under which standard clauses are not included in the contract, that is, if the party providing the standard clauses fails to perform the obligation of reminder or explanation, resulting in the other party not paying attention to or understanding the clauses in which it has a material interest, the other party can claim that the clauses do not become the content of the contract.

Therefore, as the provider of the standard clauses, the developer must not only set the rights and obligations of both parties fairly, but also fulfill the obligation to prompt or explain to the other party, otherwise it cannot be regarded as an agreement between the two parties on the content of the clause, and the content of the clause shall not be included in the contract or enter the scope of validity evaluation.

After the implementation of the Civil Code, the relevant precedents for the application of standard clauses show that there will be less and less room for clause-makers to use their position advantages to create "overlord clauses", and market transactions will be fairer and more standardized.

The above content refers to the Encyclopedia - Civil Code.

Because the store issued an invitation, ** was 1085 yuan, and Liu gave a commitment to this offer, so the contract was reached. At this time, it depends on whether Liu may know that the ** of this camera may be able to be traded for 1085 yuan. If it is impossible to know.

Then the contract is valid.

Later, the store found out that the price was wrong and demanded back payment, which had no legal basis. Because the contract has been established and taken into effect, the store can only explain that it has been deceived or has a major misunderstanding if it wants to cancel or change the contract. Because it was an invitation from the store, there could not have been a major misunderstanding on the part of the store itself.

So it can only be from the point of view of being defrauded.

If Liu did not know, it would not be a fraud, so the original contract was valid. Liu does not have to pay the extra price.

In the same way, Liu has no right to ask Zhang to pay the difference.

According to Article 59 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, one party has the right to request the people's court or arbitration organ to modify or revoke the following civil acts: (1) the actor has a major misunderstanding of the content of the act; (2) Manifestly unfair. A revoked civil act is void from the beginning of the act.

In this case, the store sold the camera to Liu for 1,085 yuan, which was a civil act of major misunderstanding. Because the store attendant mistakenly marked the 1,850 yuan camera as 1,085 yuan.

It is a civil act in which the perpetrator has a major misunderstanding of the content of the act, and may have the right to request that the people's court modify or revoke it.

After a civil act is revoked, the property acquired by the party as a result of the act shall be returned to the party who suffered the loss. In this case, the sale and purchase between the store and Liu should be revoked. Liu only needs to return the extra 200 yuan to the store.

Zhang is a legally obtained third party and does not have to bear any responsibility. Losses incurred by the store can be borne by the salesperson. Because it is not allowed to fight against a bona fide third party.

1. If all five of them are malicious, A can claim the return of the original goods to any of them, and if the original goods cannot be returned, the market price will be used to compensate for the original goods. It is a special case for Yu Ding, because he has already processed the original, and the value is much higher than the original, so he needs to return the value of the original, not the carved white horse. In addition, A cannot ask Geng, because the possession of the renminbi is ownership, and he can dispose of the money and then give it away, and this is not a criminal case, it is not stolen money, and there is no way to recover it.

In the end, I can only ask for it.

2. If it is all good faith, B can only understand that good faith can only mean that he has no right to act in order to raise medical expenses for A, and if it is recognized afterwards, this matter can be effective, and B only needs to give 320,000 cash to A. If the other person has obtained it in good faith from the beginning of C, A cannot demand the return from C. Geng is also no, for the same reasons as above.

1. A can claim the return of the original to them, of course, the original has changed, and B can be asked to compensate for the loss.

2. It should be explained here that it is impossible to be bona fide, at least B is not bona fide, B disposes of the thing knowing that it does not have the right to dispose of it, and it is not entitled to dispose of it, while C and D have paid the market price and can obtain ownership, and G is the donee, and bona fide acquisition is not applicable, at this time, A should claim rights against B.

3. In this case, there is no right to dispose of, obtained in good faith, and unjust enrichment.

After consignment according to law, Zhang Jun originally obtained the ownership of the watch, Zhang Jun gave it to Li Li, and Li Li legally obtained the ownership of the watch. The thief did not legally obtain the ownership of the watch, but illegally took possession of it, and the thief was a person who had no right to dispose of the watch, and Zhao Ping bought the watch at a low price, which did not meet the circumstances of obtaining it in good faith, and Zhao Ping did not purchase the watch through auction or from an operator with business qualifications. Therefore, the ownership of this watch should belong to Li Li.

Li Li: This is a real question in the bar exam.

If you have not asserted your rights within the statute of limitations, you will be deemed to have waived your rights! This case does not involve Party C, so Party A is reasonable! If the party fails to assert its rights in time, it shall be held responsible.

The statute of limitations for personal injury is one year, so B is not entitled to claim compensation from A.

But you can negotiate with A about this.

What is lost beyond the statute of limitations is the substantive right to prevail, and the lawsuit can still be sued procedurally. The court accepts the case, but the other party can use the statute of limitations as a defense, and the court will rule against the plaintiff.

However, if the other party does not raise the defense that the statute of limitations has expired, the court will not take the initiative to review it.

Intermediate C Mediation is an act of personal mediation and does not belong to the statutory cause, so it does not belong to the interruption of the statute of limitations. So the statute of limitations has expired.

The judgment dismissed the claim.

The statute of limitations for personal injury is 1 year. The injury occurred on 1 January 2007 and the statute of limitations expired on 1 January 2008. According to Article 140 of the General Principles of the Civil Code:

The three statutory reasons for the interruption of the statute of limitations are: the initiation of a lawsuit, the obligee's request and the obligor's agreement to perform the obligation, and the obligee's claim is made against the perpetrator, and in this case, B filed compensation against C instead of against the wrongdoer A, so it cannot constitute an interruption of the statute of limitations. According to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure:

The court shall accept a case where the statute of limitations has already passed, and after acceptance, there is no reason for interrupting or suspending the statute of limitations. The judgment dismissed the claim.

The marriage of A and B is a civil legal fact, resulting in a legal relationship of marriage, and A and B directly enjoy parental rights over each other.

The birth of a child C is an event in the civil legal facts, and A and C and B and C enjoy the right of kinship.

In the year when B's parents die, there is a legal relationship of inheritance between B and his parents; There was a change in ownership of the three rooms of the estate house.

In the year when B dies, there is a legal relationship of inheritance between A and C.

In the year, A remarried, A and D had a legal relationship of marriage, and A and C enjoyed parental rights.

6. A first leases the house to E, and the two parties have a housing lease contract relationship, and then donates it to E, which constitutes a gift relationship, and the ownership of the house must be registered and transferred.

In the year, A died of illness, and there was a legal relationship of inheritance between C and A.