A legal question!! Very urgent!!

This actually involves the issue of the effectiveness of the conduct of persons with limited capacity.

To put it simply, a person with limited capacity can engage in acts appropriate to his or her age and mental state, and such acts take effect as soon as they are made, without the need for the approval of their guardians. Only acts that exceed their age and mental state are to be determined and can only take effect after being recognized by their guardians.

1) The ownership belongs to Li Gang.

Purely beneficial behaviors that limit the capacity of persons are effective.

2) Li Gang's act of selling computers, I personally believe that its validity should be recognized.

The crux of the question is whether Li Gang has the ability to handle the property of the computer independently. It can be seen from Li Gang's subsequent behavior (buying a compatible machine for 4,000 yuan) that he is capable of disposing of this property, so Li Gang's behavior is valid without the determination of the guardian.

The ownership should be the uncle's, with the name of the invoice as the standard, and the uncle's testimony must be given to Li Gang and agree to the transfer. If there is no documentary proof, the right to use it should have been Li Gang's before the sale. The ownership is still my uncle's.

Of course, Li Gang did not have the right to sell, and if he was sold, he could only sell it with his uncle's consent.

1) Before the sale, the ownership belonged to Li Gang, and Li Gang's uncle was a gift, and the donor was Li Gang. There is no age limit for the donor.

2) The validity of this contract is to be determined, and after the opposition of Li Gang's parents and legal guardians, that is, they do not agree to recognize, this contract is invalid.

Contract Law》 Article 47 A contract entered into by a person with limited capacity for civil conduct shall be valid after being retroactively recognized by the statutory person, but a contract that is purely beneficial or a contract concluded in accordance with his age, intelligence, or mental health status does not need to be recognized by the statutory person.

1 Li Gang's parents, under the age of 18, have guardianship rights.

2. Invalid. Without the consent of a guardian.

The ownership of the money from the sale belongs to Li Gang, and the act of selling the computer should be taxed. . .

I'm too lazy to say anything simple.

1 As long as Li Gang's uncle agrees to give it to Li Gang, he has the right to it. 2. Valid, with ownership and the right to sell property.

Li Gang: Under the age of 18, he is a minor, and his parents are considered to have guardianship.

But this ownership should belong to Li Gang.

Li Gang has the right to sell, from Li Gang sold this computer to his classmate Li Hao for 4500 ** and bought a compatible machine for 4000 yuan. We can see that Li Gang has the right to deal with his own affairs1

Criminalized as robbery.

In the case of an attached civil lawsuit, the court of second instance shall reject the claim. According to Article 90 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law, attached civil litigation shall be initiated after the criminal case is filed, and before the first-instance judgment is announced. Where a person who has the right to raise an attached civil lawsuit did not do so before the first-instance judgment is announced, the attached civil lawsuit must not be raised again.

However, a separate civil lawsuit may be filed after the judgment takes effect.

1. This act is a joint dangerous act, and if the actor has evidence to prove that it was not caused by his own act, he may not be liable, otherwise he shall bear joint and several liability, and it can be seen that the burden of proof should be borne by A, B, and C.

2. If A, B, and C can prove that their actions did not cause harm to Liu, they can be exempted from liability. Article 10 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that "if two or more persons commit acts that endanger the personal and property safety of others, and one or more of them act in a manner that dismantles the damage caused to tens of millions of others, and the specific infringer can be determined, the infringer Fan Tong shall be liable; If the individual tortfeasor cannot be determined, the perpetrator shall bear joint and several liability".

3. If it cannot be ascertained, only A, B and C can jointly and severally be liable. Because A, B, and C jointly carried out a dangerous act, which caused actual harm to Liu and infringed on Liu's health, and it was impossible to find out who caused the injury, the three were responsible for their dangerous conduct.