Doubts about legal cases, basic facts of the case Legal issues

First, the power grid issued a notice should be transmitted through newspapers, news, television and other effective channels, for only for the determination of the power outage within the scope of the user should be notified one by one, in this case, you look at the specific situation, if in the power outage area there are only 60 of your businesses or a clear number of people, the power grid is not notified in place, should be held responsible.

Second, the developer you are talking about is the property, whether it is the property or the developer, as long as there is an agreement between you, he has the right and obligation to manage and recover, then when it is determined that he received the notice from the power grid and arrived elsewhere, he did not notify you in time, then he needs to be responsible for this.

Power outages are the responsibility of the power supply department, and advance notice has been given, and in principle, the obligation to inform has been fulfilled. The failure to give notice is obviously at fault, because it is one of the obligations of the manager to notify the power outage.

As for the spare part, it depends on your contract with **.

If there are relevant provisions, you can claim liquidated damages from **, or claim the loss of business due to the power outage.

The manager has the obligation to notify and can claim compensation from ** if property damage is caused by a power outage and there is no preparation time; However, if it is a loss of turnover, it is difficult to think of a claim, because the loss of business due to a power outage is inevitable, and there is no responsibility for the power outage; However, if the property loss caused by the untimely notification could have been avoided, ** shall bear the corresponding responsibility.

The power outage is not the fault of the developer, but the reason of the ** department, which I don't think can be blamed on the developer. If the current power outage is caused by the electrical construction problems of the developer's original building, I think this is okay.

Legal basis: Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China and the Trial Supervision Procedures

Article 11: People's courts shall find facts that have a substantial impact on the outcome of the original judgment or ruling, and are used to determine the parties' qualifications, the nature of the case, specific rights and obligations, civil liability, and other such main content, as the "basic facts" provided for in item (2) of paragraph 1 of article 179 of the Civil Procedure Law.

Article 335:The basic facts provided for in item (3) of paragraph 1 of article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law refer to facts used to determine the parties' qualifications, the nature of the case, civil rights and obligations, and other facts that have a substantial impact on the outcome of the original judgment or ruling.

Laws are enacted or approved by the state and enforced by the coercive power of the state, reflecting a system of norms determined by the will of the ruling class in relation to specific material conditions of life. [1] The law is the embodiment of the will of the ruling class, and it is the ruling tool of the state.

A description of the application of the law.

There are two issues examined in this case: First, if the defendant appeals and does not increase the sentence, but the procuratorate protests, it is not affected by the non-increase of the sentence.

The second is the issue of juvenile delinquency. Where a person who has reached the age of 14 commits the crime of intentional homicide, he shall be sentenced to a criminal punishment, but may be given a lighter punishment.

This issue is mainly to examine the principle of not increasing the sentence on appeal, but the procuratorate's protest is an exception.

It is the responsibility of the adopter (regardless of whether it was ever a feral cat or not).

Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law: Where a raised animal causes damage to others, the keeper or manager of the animal shall bear tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused intentionally or by the negligence of the infringed party, the liability may not be borne or reduced.

Article 82: Where abandoned or escaped animals cause harm to others during the period of abandonment or escape, the original animal keeper or manager bears tort liability.

Article 83: Where an animal causes harm to others due to a third party's fault, the infringed party may request compensation from the animal keeper or manager, and may also request compensation from the third hailstone. After the animal keeper or manager makes compensation, he or she has the right to recover compensation from a third party.

It should be the responsibility of the keeper.

Article 78 of the Tort Liability Law: Where a raised animal causes damage to others, the animal keeper or manager shall bear tort liability, but if it can be proved that the damage was caused by the gross negligence of the infringed party intentionally or pretending to be an elder, the liability may be waived or reduced.

Adopter The principle of the presumption of no fault means that the adopter is responsible regardless of whether the adopter is at fault for the bite.

Compared with the General Principles of the Civil Law, the Tort Liability Law expands the scope of application of the presumption of fault to nine types, but does not include Article 89. Article 89 provides for neither presumption of fault nor no-fault liability.

Among them, A and B do not lose the right of inheritance. However, because of the failure to fulfill the maintenance obligation, the inheritance can be divided less or even non-existent.

In the interest of public order and good morals, C should not refuse (that is, if he goes to court, the worst outcome is that C must accept it). A and B do not receive more in the inheritance of the estate without maintenance. If A and B claim some reimbursement for funeral expenses in the estate, it is legally supported.

5.The law only regulates human behavior, not motives. That is to say, the law will regulate the actual behavior that occurs.

The question of inheritance remains the same as above. Regardless of whether the funeral expenses or maintenance are paid or not, the identity of the first-order heirs of A and B remains unchanged, and the inheritance rights will not be lost. It's just that the amount of inheritance to be shared will be small.

A and B do not inherit only if their parents have completely distributed all the inheritance in their will and left them at all. or in the case of loss of inheritance rights (e.g., killing of the decedent).

1. The right of inheritance is statutory.

2. A has the legal right of inheritance, but does not perform the obligation of maintenance, and can not be divided or less when the property is divided.

3. B inherits the woman's property right is also statutory, if the maintenance obligation is not fulfilled (this is divided into whether B refuses to perform the obligation or the woman does not let B perform for other reasons), you can give up less or no share, but you must claim that there is a share of B, and the division ratio can be negotiated.

4. There is a hierarchical relationship of inheritance, and the inheritance is carried out according to the inheritance method, and the proportion is calculated separately.

5. The inheritance right is determined by blood, and both A and B have the legal right of inheritance. However, if the realization of the inheritance right is accompanied by the performance of the obligation, if the obligation is refused, the realization of the right and interest will be restricted. In such cases, if the property of the man and the woman is basically similar to the maintenance committee, A and B will lose the conditions for inheritance and division, but if there is a large amount of inheritance, A and B will also have the right to inherit, but the division ratio should be appropriately reduced.

1.No, but the scope of the people you change can't be for the rest of the public.

2.End of compensation.

3.You will be criminally detained.

4.If you know, or ought to know, that these copper wires are stolen cables, you become a suspect, and if you don't know, or if there is enough evidence that you can't know, you are not guilty.

1. It doesn't count. 2. If you don't have money, the court can't award you 100w at all. You're going to jail.

Intentional homicide: sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than 10 years, life imprisonment, or death. Going to jail won't make you die.

3. Damn, only write me 100 words, and I can't write it later.

1.Operating without a license requires business behavior, ie"Make a career out of it"。Not counted.

2.Termination Indemnity.

3.If there is evidence of what you are saying, i.e., "no fault", then there is no fault and no liability.

4.Subjective perception determines the outcome. For example, the shape of the copper wire at that time, your level of knowledge, etc., determine that it is impossible to know that it is a cable.

Personal debts are borne by the individual, and his parents are not obliged to compensate, and if they inherit his estate, they are liable for payment within the scope of the estate.

Inheritance Law of the People's Republic of China

Adopted at the Third Session of the Sixth National People's Congress on April 10, 1985, promulgated on the same day, and effective as of October 1, 1985).

Article 33: [Limited Inheritance] The inheritance shall pay off the taxes and debts that the decedent shall pay in accordance with the law, and the payment of taxes and debts shall be limited to the actual value of his estate. The part exceeding the actual value of the estate shall not be subject to voluntary repayment by the heirs.

If the heir renounces the inheritance, he may not be liable for repaying the taxes and debts that the decedent should pay in accordance with the law.

If her ex-husband had property, there was a chance that the money would have to come back.

If his parents inherit his estate, the money can be compensated by his parents, up to the amount of the inherited property.

Her ex-husband's heirs can be asked to return it within the limits of their inheritance.