Case analysis of civil law, general theory of civil law, case analysis

A family has a property of 1.2 million yuan, and there is no special provision in this question that it should be recognized as the joint property of the husband and wife, so the share of Zai A after his death should be 600,000 yuan (that is, the inheritance is 600,000 yuan) Now according to the legal inheritance, A's two sons, wife and daughter, as the first heirs of the estate, should be able to receive an inheritance of 150,000 yuan each. (without taking into account the aftermath).

Wife B is not the legal heir of A and therefore cannot inherit A's estate, but only B's estate.

Ding's daughter can inherit A's property based on subrogation.

As mentioned above, A's wife gets 150,000 yuan, his two sons each get 150,000 yuan, and his daughter should also get 150,000 yuan if she dies. But since the daughter has died, the daughter's daughter will inherit the 150,000 yuan by subrogation.

4.As for the inheritance within the eldest son's family, it has nothing to do with A's inheritance.

1》Because A does not have a will, 1.2 million should be the joint inheritance of B, C, A, and D, because according to the law, they are all first-order heirs.

2》B's wife can only inherit B's property, and in this case, only B has an inheritance relationship with her, and 3》D's girl cannot inherit because the object of inheritance has died.

4》Can be negotiated or prorated.

At the same time, if a child who has the obligation and ability to support does not fulfill the corresponding responsibility of support to his or her parents, the inheritance may be appropriately divided less.

Company A lent the special contract seal to B and authorized B **A to enter into a contract, but after B completed A's entrustment, it did not return the special contract seal to A in time, and entered into a contract with C. C's request for Company A to perform its obligations under the contract was rejected by A on the grounds that A had not authorized B to enter into a contract with C. As a result, disputes arose.

I would like to ask: 1) Company A lent the special contract seal to B and authorized B **A to enter into a contract, but after B completed A's entrustment, it did not return the special contract seal to A in time, and entered into a contract with C. C's request for Company A to perform its obligations under the contract was rejected by A on the grounds that A had not authorized B to enter into a contract with C. As a result, disputes arose.

Excuse me: (1) If Company C does not know that B does not have the right to **, does Company C have the right to require Company A to perform its contractual obligations, and why? (2) If Company C knows that B does not have the right to **, does Company C have the right to require Company A to perform its contractual obligations, and why?

3) If B privately engraved the seal during the legal use of the special seal of the contract, and after B completed the entrustment of A, returned the original special seal of the contract to A, but B used the privately engraved seal to enter into a contract with C, does Company C have the right to require Company A to perform its contractual obligations, and why?

Answer: (1) Company A has the right to perform its obligations, because Company C has reason to believe that Company B has the right to act according to the special chapter of the contract, and Company B constitutes the appearance of **, and the person being **, that is, Company A, must be responsible for the behavior of the apparent person.

2) No rights, according to Article 66 of the General Principles of the Civil Code.

3. Paragraph 4, which belongs to the collusion between the ** and the third party to damage the interests of the ** person, and the ** person does not need to perform the contractual obligations.

3) No right, because Company C has not fulfilled its obligation of careful review, it can only assume the responsibility of the person who has no right to **, i.e., Company B, and shall not require it to bear contractual obligations without the recognition of Company A.

1) It has the right to require Company A to perform its obligations, because the appearance of ** Apparent ** refers to the fact that although the actor does not have the right, due to his own behavior, it has caused enough to make a bona fide third party believe that he has the right to ** the act of ** and the legal consequences are borne by the person According to Article 49 of the Contract Law of China:"If the actor does not have the right to exceed the right or after the termination of the right, a contract is concluded in the name of the person being subject, and the counterparty has reason to believe that the actor has the right to do so, the act is valid and ......

2) Knowing that it will not work Article 48, paragraph 1 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: the actor does not have the right to **, exceeds the right of **, or enters into a contract in the name of the person subject to ** after the termination of the right of **, and without the recognition of the person being **, it will not have legal effect on the person being **, and the actor shall bear civil liability. However, paragraph 2 provides:

The counterpart may urge the ** person to make a retrospective recognition within one month.

1.**The act is invalid because Zhang and Gao colluded in bad faith See Article 52 of the Contract Law.

2.Mr. Zhang and Mr. Gao shall be jointly and severally liable for Liu's losses, see Article 59 of the Contract Law.

3.Yes, because it is joint and several liability, Liu can claim a total loss from either of the two (only the two of them bear the share liability according to their fault).

This book is a supporting case teaching book for the "21st Century Curriculum Textbook" of the Ministry of Education and the "Eleventh Five-Year Plan" National Planning Textbook for General Higher Education - "Civil Law" (published by Higher Education Press, edited by Professor Guo Mingrui). The book selects 40 typical cases from the civil cases that have been concluded by courts across the country for analysis, and each case analysis is divided into four parts: basic case facts, court rulings, legal theory analysis, and self-test cases. Among them, the legal theory analysis part theoretically analyzes the basic civil law issues involved in the case, and analyzes the gains and losses of the court's judgment.

The self-test cases mainly focus on the civil law issues involved in the legal theory analysis, and put forward questions in the form of examples for students to think about and practice.

Table of Contents: Chapter I: General Treatise on Civil Law.

Case 1: Abuse of Rights Dispute.

Case 2: A dispute over the civil capacity of a plant.

Case 3 Apparently ** Dispute Case.

Case 4: Dispute over statute of limitations.

Chapter II: Property Rights.

Case 5: Ownership dispute.

Case 6: Distinguish between all types of building space use disputes.

Case 7: Neighboring Relationship Dispute.

Case 8: Dispute over the acquisition of the statute of limitations.

Case 9: Dispute over the transfer of the right to use construction land.

Case 10: Dispute over compensation for expropriation of contracted land.

Case 11: Dispute over the right to use a homestead.

Case 12: Mortgage dispute.

Case 13 Dispute over the highest mortgage right.

Effective. Because he is over 16 years old, and he is already earning money independently, he can do what he wants. Incapacity is after the purchase of the TV, so the act can be considered valid.

1. Effective. Ding is a bona fide third party.

2. Effective. It is not coercion, because E took the initiative to negotiate with A, and A can refuse. Instead of looking for a penny and then sitting on the ground to start the price.

1. When the buyer is in good faith, the movable property has been delivered, and the equal consideration has been paid, D constitutes a bona fide acquisition.

2. The intention of taking advantage of the danger of others to purchase goods at an obvious low price, contrary to the true will of A, is a voidable contract.

(1) Valid, A in his own name ** motorcycle, D does not know that the car is not A's, constitutes a superficial **, so it is valid (refer to Article 49 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China).

2) It is a voidable contract. E clearly knew A's situation, and had obviously unreasonable ** to buy A's antiques, taking advantage of the danger of others, which was obviously unfair, so it was a voidable contract (refer to Article 54 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China).

A opened a restaurant called "Chang'an Restaurant" in the downtown area of the city, applied for a business license, and later handed over the restaurant to his younger brothers B and C for health reasons. One day, Ding, a driver of a construction company, drove a truck loaded with construction materials past the hotel, and because the building materials were stacked too high, he knocked off the sign of "Chang'an Restaurant", smashed E's motorcycle in front of the hotel, and smashed the handheld computer in the basket. On the matter of damages, E negotiated with B and C, and they reasoned that A was the owner and had nothing to do with it; A theorized that it was caused by the construction company driver D, driving the vehicle.

As a result, E Yijia sued the court as the defendant, demanding compensation for the loss of the motorcycle and the handheld computer caused to him a total of 8,000 yuan. In the course of the lawsuit, A and E settled on their own and promised to compensate E for the loss of 7,000 yuan, but unfortunately, E died in a car accident on the way home.

Now we ask: (1) Who should be the defendant in this case?

2) What is the litigation status of the other persons involved in this case?

3) Is the reconciliation between A and E valid against other persons in this case?

4) How should the lawsuit proceed after E dies in a car accident?

Case Analysis: 1. Wang Ming is in the original position. Wang Liang is in the position of a defendant. Wang Enyi is in the position of a third party in the litigation with the right to make an independent claim.

2. The litigation shall be suspended. According to the first paragraph of Article 136 of the Civil Procedure Law, the litigation shall be suspended in any of the following circumstances: one of the parties dies and it is necessary to wait for the heirs to indicate whether they will participate in the litigation;

3. It is up to the court to decide whether or not to grant permission. According to article 131 of the Civil Procedure Law, if the plaintiff applies to withdraw the lawsuit before the judgment is announced, the people's court shall decide whether to approve it.

Where the people's court rules not to allow the withdrawal of the lawsuit, and the plaintiff is summoned by summons and refuses to appear in court without a legitimate reason, a judgment may be rendered in absentia.

First, according to the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, inheritance cases and immovable property disputes belong to exclusive jurisdiction, and this case seems to be an examination of inheritance, but in fact it is the jurisdiction of immovable property, and immovable property cases should have the jurisdiction of the court where the immovable property is located, so this case is under the jurisdiction of the court of District B.

Second, Both Sides Appealed in the Second Instance According to the provisions of the interpretation of China's Procedural Law, Wang A and Wang B were both appellants in the second instance.

Third, the court of second instance should remand for a new trial, because the inheritance case is a necessary joint action, and the omission of the parties to the case in the first instance is procedurally illegal, and it should be remanded for a new trial.

The civil legal relationships involved in this case include: first, the establishment of a causeless management relationship between A and C; the second is the tort compensation relationship for damage caused by animals; The third is the guardianship relationship between B and A. For the damage of A, A and C should bear the tort liability, and their defense is not established.

According to the provisions of the General Principles of the Civil Law, if a raised animal causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear civil liability. Where damage is caused by the fault of the victim, the animal keeper or manager shall not bear civil liability; Where damage is caused by the fault of a third party, the third party shall bear civil liability. In this case, Liu Zhuo, as the animal keeper, and Zhang Shan, as the manager, should be liable for compensation for the damage caused to the animals they raised or managed.

They are exempt from liability unless they can prove that the damage was caused by the fault of the victim or a third party. In this case, the defendant's argument that B failed to fulfill his guardianship duties was untenable. Since A managed the pet dog for C's benefit and there was no gross negligence in the management, C was ultimately liable for the injury caused by the animal to others.

Therefore, after A has made compensation to the victim, the compensation paid can be recovered from C as a necessary expense on the basis of the uncaused management debt.

There is no civil liability for damage caused by management and animals. First, if A finds the dog and actively searches for the owner, it shows that he has no legal obligation to raise and manage the animal for the benefit of others, which can be found to meet the constitutive elements of causeless management. A as the administrator and C as the beneficiary, a debt relationship without cause management is established between the two.

A has the right to request Liu Zhuo to pay the necessary expenses in the management, such as the registration fee, feed fee, etc. Second, when A was leading the dog for a walk, he did not exercise due diligence when chatting with others, causing harm to others, and should be held responsible as a manager. Thirdly, it should be considered that after all, A is a caretaker without cause, and C, as the keeper of the animal, cannot be exempted from liability for damage caused to humans by the animal.

After that, A can claim against C for the debts of management without cause, including the right to claim for repayment of necessary expenses such as taking care of the loss and publishing the report to find the owner, etc., and the right to claim for the repayment of the debt.

I also went to look through my notes, and I was tired of answering. I hope to give a good review, ask for adoption, ask for praise, ask for extra points. Thank you.

First, with Red Star Taxi Company as the defendant, it should be a lawsuit for breach of contract, and Red Star Taxi Orange Fu Automobile Company shall bear the liability for breach of contract.

Second, Hongda Passenger Transport Company can be the defendant, and the lawsuit should be filed as an infringement lawsuit, which is an infringement.

Third, B is not liable to A. Because B's act of repentance is an act of duty, the taxi company should be held responsible, and the taxi company can recover from Hongda Passenger Transport Company after assuming it.