Ask for an economic and legal question! Case Study

If Li's civil act was not recognized by his parents, the court should find that the civil act was invalid and reject Zhang's claim.

The reasons are as follows: 1. When Li made the civil act, he was under the age of 18, and he was not a person who was over 16 years old but under the age of 18 and used his own labor as his main income, and he was a person with limited civil capacity.

2. The civil acts performed by persons with limited capacity for civil conduct, especially the acts of bearing obligations, are to be determined in effect according to the provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law and relevant interpretations. Civil acts whose validity is pending shall be retroactively recognized by their legal guardians in order to be valid. Now Li's parents do not admit the arrears, proving that they did not recognize it, and the civil act is invalid.

3. Invalid civil acts shall be invalid ab initio.

Li was under the age of 18 at the time, and was a person who did not have full civil capacity, and the IOU written down thousands of yuan did not correspond to his civil capacity, so the IOU was invalid. The people's court shall reject Zhang's litigation claim in accordance with law.

Li was born in January 1980, and when he wrote the IOU on June 4, 1997, he was 17 years and five months old, under the age of 18, and was a minor, and it is excluded that those who are between the ages of 16 and 18 who earn a living by their own labor are regarded as adults. Therefore, Li is a minor, and in order to be a person with limited capacity, the huge amount of IOU signed has not been recognized by his ** person (guardian-parents), and his ** person has not been retrospectively recognized, so the civil act of signing the IOU is revocable.

The court should rule that the civil contract (i.e., the signed IOU) is voidable, and if Li (who is an adult at this time) defends with the right of revocation, the contract is invalid ab initio and does not bear any responsibility; If Li admits that the contract is valid, he should pay the arrears in accordance with the contract, and even if his parents do not agree, it will not affect the validity of the contract, because Li is an adult and has full civil capacity.

You can go to the "Health Legal Network" to find materials, or consult.

There are two points to be clarified, 1 Li was under the age of 18 at the time, and he did not live mainly on his own income, and he was a minor. The civil acts they have committed are not necessarily fully valid. However, minors over the age of 10 may engage in civil activities appropriate to their age and mental status.

This is such a civil act. Reason: Article 3 of the General Principles of the Civil Law and Article 3 of the Opinions of the People's Republic of China 2 Li said that it was not written voluntarily, and he should provide the corresponding evidence, otherwise it is a valid act.

Whoever asserts is the one who gives evidence. Article 2 of the Evidence Provisions. Here, if Li has the ability to repay, he should bear this responsibility, and if Li is incapable, the original guardian should bear the civil liability.

Article 161 of the Opinions.

Except for certain persons who have the right to search, no one may search the body of another person except through legal procedures. Therefore, the supermarket's actions are illegal. Therefore:

The court will support the student's request, and the supermarket will definitely lose the lawsuit, but the compensation will not be too high. (If the same thing happens in the United States, the supermarket may go out of business).

1. Huamei Factory can exercise the right of revocation because Daxing Shopping Mall did not reply within 15 days of the agreed deadline;

2. Document 2 issued by Daxing Shopping Mall is supplemental because it is issued after the deadline is over;

3. The document 1 issued by Huamei Refrigerator Factory and the reply document 2 by Daxing Shopping Mall did not make the two parties establish a contractual relationship;

4. Daxing's payment of the advance payment and Huamei Factory's subsequent stocking of goods are meaningful to judge the conclusion of the contract, although Daxing Shopping Mall's reply is later than the statutory time, Huamei Factory received the payment and started production, indicating that the contract began to be performed;

5. Daxing Shopping Mall's transfer of the contract to Shunhe Shopping Mall is invalid, because one party to the contract must obtain the consent of the other party to the contract if it transfers the rights and obligations of the contract to a third party; 6、

1-1. If Company A had previously authorized A to purchase goods from Company B, Company A must bear the act of Company A before Company A revokes its authorization.

1-2. If A commits the crime of fraud, Company A can report the case and recover losses from A.

2-1. Liu's online activities are subject to his official account, and his account was misused by his son, which belongs to Liu's improper custody, and should bear all the responsibilities arising therefrom, including receiving and paying for the goods.

Standard Answer: Landlord, please give points.

Answer: (1) This is a question of whether the termination of the relationship between the principal and the **person is effective for the third party after the principal withdraws the **person's **right. It is generally accepted in the laws of many countries under American and civil law that he depends on the knowledge of the third party.

If the third party is affectionate, the third party cannot require the original client to be responsible for the behavior of the ** person; Conversely, the settlor should be liable to protect the interests of bona fide third parties.

In this case, since Company B was not interested in the termination of the ** relationship between Company A and A before the transaction, it had the right to demand that Company A be held responsible for A's act of not having the right to **.

2) A's behavior is an act of non-authority from the perspective of commercial law. After determining the payment liability of Company A to Company B, A shall bear the responsibility for repayment to Company A. If Company A is not liable for payment to B, A shall be liable for payment to Company B.

On the other hand, if A defrauds the goods and escapes, if it constitutes fraud, he will also be criminally liable. For details, see:

Hey, it's easy, give me extra points! (1) Company A must be responsible for the fact that A has no right to **, of course, the premise is that A is indeed in the name of Company A, for example, with the seal of Company A, that is, A has signed a valid contract with Company B. Company B was a bona fide third party and he had reason to believe that Company A continued to work for Company A and that Company A was responsible.

2) A should be responsible. Company A can only compensate Company A for its losses if Company A pursues A. Of course, if Company A does not pursue it, A can be irresponsible.

The second question is that you can not pay. If it is not your own intention, you can not pay. But as the guardian of the child, you have to pay some responsibility, and you have to settle the travel expenses for him, which can be negotiated and resolved.

Bonus points ......

1 A constitutes a superficial ** and needs to be responsible.

2 A is called fraud in criminal law, and there is also a debt relationship in civil law.

1. The subject of the contract is Liu's son, and he is 8 years old and a person with no capacity for civil conduct, and the contract he is determined to be invalid is invalid.

"Constitution", Chinese jurisprudence, "Contract Law", I don't know if it's the answer to the question you asked. If you're a student, it's a good thing to be a good school!

1. Shi's lawsuit is dismissed. According to the principle of res judicata, Shi has already sued and won the lawsuit, and is in the process of enforcement, and can no longer file a lawsuit due to enforcement issues. (Civil Procedure Law.)

2. During the execution process, if the person subject to enforcement has no property available for enforcement, then the shares of the company held by the person subject to enforcement can be executed, but other shareholders have the right of first refusal. (Company Law).

3. The company has been established and there is no question of dissolving the company, so the case does not involve the personality of the company.

4. It is impossible for you to be asked to state the source of the legal provisions for the reasons in the case analysis questions of the bar exam, so it is enough to mention "there is such a provision". If it's a ** topic, there's nothing you can do.

1. False propaganda misleads consumers.

2. The manufacturer bears the ultimate responsibility, the seller bears joint and several liability, and the consumer only asks the seller to bear the responsibility, the seller should bear the responsibility, and if it can be proved that the manufacturer is responsible, the seller has the right to claim compensation from the manufacturer.

3. Resident A has the right to request the return of the property and compensation.

4. This situation belongs to product liability, and since product liability implements the principle of no-fault liability, therefore, when the victim claims compensation from the producer, there is no need to prove whether the producer is at fault. Rather, the producer shall, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Product Quality Law, bear the burden of proof on whether the products it produces have the reasons for exemption as stipulated in the Product Quality Law and whether it has the statutory conditions for exemption. That is, the principle of "reversal of the burden of proof" is implemented.

Therefore, if the court's judgment is wrong and the manufacturer cannot prove it, Qiting should rule that the manufacturer loses the lawsuit.