Ask me about economic and legal issues!! I d like to ask a question about economic law!

According to the judicial interpretation of the Security Law, if the same creditor's right is both insured by a third party, the creditor may request the guarantor or the guarantor of the thing to bear the guarantee liability. It is not necessary to guarantee the property first, and the creditor has the right to choose. Pay attention to whether your friend's property is registered as a mortgage, if not, the mortgage is invalid.

Judging from what you said, it should be your friend's house that was used as collateral for the company's loan. In other words, the company borrowed 200w from someone and used your friend's house as a guarantee.

Legally, **** is an independent legal person with limited liability for its own debts. That is to say, the company owes 200w, which can only be repaid with all the property in the company's name, no matter how much is not repaid in the end, it will not be transferred into the personal debt of the company's shareholders. This is because the company and its shareholders are legally independent of each other.

For insolvent companies, the most they can do is liquidate and go out of business. At this time, the creditor's unfulfilled claims can be asked for by the guarantor, or the proceeds from the sale of the collateral can be repaid. In your case, the 200w creditor can ask the court to sell your friend's house and pay him back.

It doesn't matter how much the company's shell is worth, because as long as those who are shareholders of the company don't agree to sell, then it's an empty shell. Whether you have the financial ability and whether you have the obligation to pay are two different things, even if the shareholder of this company is Fok Yingdong, if he doesn't want to inject capital into the company, the creditor can only talk about your friend's house.

By the way, the only hope now is that the person who started the company has a little conscience. Therefore, in the commercial society, you must be cautious when guaranteeing others!

B and D cannot act as funders.

Valid, the other party has reason to believe that A is the person who has the authority to enter into the contract, and there is no external characteristic to show that the other party knows that A does not have such authority. At the same time, the enterprise where A works cannot use its own internal regulations against the counterparty of the contract, but it can pursue A's responsibility.

If the steel company is a bona fide third party and does not know that there is such an agreement between them, the contract is valid, and if it is a malicious third party, that is, it knows that there is such an agreement between them, the contract is invalid.

According to the description, this involves anti-unfair competition and monopoly, and the measures have the following measures according to the Anti-Monopoly Law: Article 39 The following measures may be taken by the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency in the investigation of suspected monopolistic acts:

1) Entering the business premises or other relevant premises of the business operator under investigation to conduct inspections;

2) Question the business operator, interested parties, or other relevant units or individuals under investigation, and request that they explain the relevant circumstances;

3) Consult and re-grasp the relevant documents, agreements, accounting books, business correspondence, electronic data, and other documents and materials of the business operators, interested parties, or other relevant units or individuals under investigation;

4) Sealing or seizing relevant evidence;

5) Inquire into the bank account of the operator.

The adoption of the measures provided for in the preceding paragraph shall be reported in writing to the principal responsible person of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agency and shall be subject to approval.

The 5,000 RMB contract between Liu and Zhang is not valid. Because the contract is a contract based on an illegal purpose, it falls under the circumstances of an invalid contract under the Contract Law.

Attached: Invalid contracts include:

First, one party concludes a contract by means of fraud or coercion, which harms the interests of the state. A contract is an agreement between the parties, and this agreement must be an expression of the true intentions of both parties. The expression of intent made when subjected to fraud or coercion fundamentally violates the principle of autonomy of will and is therefore invalid.

Second, malicious collusion to harm the interests of the state, the collective, or a third party. The reason for this invalidity consists of two factors: subjective and objective. The subjective factor is malicious collusion, that is, the parties have a common purpose and hope to harm the interests of the state, the collective or a third party through the conclusion of a contract.

Third, the concealment of illegal purposes in a lawful form. The contract must be legal in order to be valid. Legality includes two aspects: the legality of the content and the legality of the purpose. Concealing an illegal purpose in a lawful form is still illegal in nature and is therefore an invalid contract.

Fourth, harming the public interest. An important purpose of the enactment of contract law is to maintain the social and economic order. However, in real life, there are very few people who use contracts to achieve ulterior motives in order to satisfy their own selfish interests.

Such a contract not only destroys the social and economic order, but also harms the public interest.

Fifth, this volume violates the mandatory spree provisions in laws and administrative regulations. This is a violation of the mandatory provisions in the laws adopted by the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee, as well as violations of the mandatory provisions in the administrative regulations promulgated by the National People's Congress.

1.Not true. The seller and the manufacturer are jointly and severally liable.

2.Request coordination with the Consumer Association, report to the quality supervision department, and file a lawsuit with the court.

3.It is jointly owned by the seller and the manufacturer. The seller may seek compensation from the producer.

4.Personal injury, hospitalization expenses, medical expenses, ** expenses, nutrition expenses, lost work expenses, etc. can be claimed for compensation.

Hope it helps.

1. Invitation to make an offer; 2. Invite the other party to make an offer, and you are not bound; 3. Yes; 4. Offer; 5. Without breach of contract, Party A has made substantial changes; 6. It is also an offer, because A's behavior is only an invitation to offer, so no matter how B expresses it, it does not constitute a promise. 2. 1. Do not support it, bear it by yourself, because Company A does not promise to enter into a contract with it and there is no fault in signing the contract; 2. Established on July 10 (the effective date of the commitment). 3. 1. An offer, which sets out specific contractual conditions and indicates that it is bound during the validity period; 2. Counter-offer, which made substantial changes to **; 3. Late acceptance, because the other party belongs to the non-substantive change of the content of the offer, and the contract is established if it does not object, and the shopping mall fails to accept it in time according to the regulations, which is a breach of contract for delaying the performance of the contract; 4. Established, no immediate objection to non-substantive changes, and the contract shall be performed according to the ** after **.

A is the third party, B is the plaintiff, C is the defendant, and D is the first person in the lawsuit.

For this case, there should be an arbitration institution to arbitrate as agreed, but the parties first sued to the court, and the other party did not raise any objection to the lawsuit, so the court also has jurisdiction.

In this case, the courts of place A, place B, place C, place where the contract was signed, and place of performance all have jurisdiction over the lawsuit B, which is the present lawsuit, and the D**C v. B is the counterclaim