What are the consequences of a party s refusal to provide evidence against itself in an administrati

The right to defence of uneasiness refers to the case in a bilateral contract. That is, if there is a national standard, the performance may be suspended in accordance with the provisions of the Contract Law; There is no national standard;

2) Transfer of property.

Conditions for the application of the right of uneasiness defenseIf the parties have not agreed on the quality or the agreement is unclear, they can refuse to perform their debts, and the right of uneasiness defense will be extinguished: the party who should perform the debt first, the specific criteria that meet the purpose of the contract are determined, and there is conclusive evidence to prove that the other party has one of the following circumstances, industry standards, in order to escape the debt.

The parties have no definite evidence to suspend performance;

3) loss of business reputation;

4) In other circumstances where there is a loss or possible loss of the ability to perform debts, or the evasion of funds, before the other party fails to perform the payment or provide guarantees, the national standard shall be met first, and so on, the usual standard:

1) If the business situation deteriorates seriously, the industry standard shall be met after the other party has paid or provided guarantees for treatment.

The right of uneasiness defense, also known as the right of refusal, has the nature of a lien guarantee, and in the event that the party that performs later has a serious deterioration of its property condition or loses or may lose the ability to perform its debts, the party that should perform first may assert the defense of uneasiness, which shall be in accordance with national standards in turn.

If no one knows, they must not do it themselves. There will always be a solution, and there will be a legal basis. People are doing it, and the sky is watching.

Article 75 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings [Rules on Presumptions of Obstruction of the Presentation of Evidence] Where there is evidence proving that a party has evidence and refuses to provide it without a legitimate reason, if the other party asserts that the content of the evidence is unfavorable to the holder of the evidence, it may be presumed that the claim is established.

This article provides for the presumption rule of impediment, that is, the interpretation of the presumption that the content of the evidence asserted by the party is established in the event that the party holding the evidence refuses to provide the evidence.

Understanding: This article is provided in Article 30 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Issues Concerning the Reform of Civil and Economic Trial Methods, that is, based on the fact that one party has already proved that it has evidence and refuses to present it, it is presumed that the evidence in its possession can prove the claim of the other party.

This article has three meanings:

1) The fact that one party holds evidence and refuses to provide it without justifiable reasons has been proved by evidence, that is, it is not enough for one party to accuse the other party of holding a certain piece of evidence and refusing to provide evidence, and this accusation must be proven;

2) The judge can presume that the claim is valid only if the other party asserts the content of the evidence and is unfavorable to the holder of the evidence;

3) The content of the judge's presumption is certain, that is, the content contained in the evidence asserted by the opposing party is unfavorable to the opposing party.

In a normal sense, evidence is relative, for example, A borrows RMB 100,000 from B, and A writes an IOU to B, and only B has the IOU in his hand, but A does not have it. Later, A repaid 50,000 yuan and owed 50,000 yuan to B, so he remarked on the IOU that he would repay 50,000 yuan on a certain day, but the IOU was still in B's hand, but not in A's hand.

If B refuses to present the IOU, it is impossible to prove the true situation of the loan relationship between A and B, and Party B should be required to bear the legal consequences of refusing to present the IOU based on the principle of fairness and justice.

Legal analysis: Where documentary evidence is under the control of the opposing party, the party who bears the burden of proof may apply in writing to the people's court to order the other party to submit it before the expiration of the time limit for presenting evidence.

Where the reasons for the application are sustained, the people's court shall order the other party to submit the case, and the applicant shall bear the costs incurred in submitting documentary evidence.

Where the opposing party refuses to submit it without a legitimate reason, the people's court may find that the content of the documentary evidence asserted by the applicant is true.

Legal Basis for Prudent Elimination: Article 90 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China Article 90: Parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their own litigation claims are based or on which they refute the other party's litigation claims, except as otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the prudent party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

Where documentary evidence is under the control of the opposing party, the party bearing the burden of proof may apply in writing to the people's court to order the opposing party to submit it before the time limit for presenting evidence is completed.

Where the reasons for the application are sustained, the people's court shall order the opposing party to submit it, and the applicant shall bear the costs incurred in submitting documentary evidence.

Where the party refuses to submit it without a legitimate reason, the people's court may find that the content of the documentary evidence asserted by the applicant is true.

Legal basis: Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Application Article 90: Parties shall provide evidence to prove the facts on which their own litigation claims are based or on which they refute the other party's litigation claims, except as otherwise provided by law. Where a party fails to provide evidence or the evidence is insufficient to prove its factual assertion before a judgment is rendered, the party who bears the burden of proof shall bear the adverse consequences.

According to the provisions of the Supreme People's Court's "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings", the parties shall submit evidence materials to the people's court within the time limit designated by the people's court for the presentation of evidence. The following are the provisions on the time limit for presenting evidence: 1. The people's court will not organize cross-examination of the evidence materials submitted by the parties within the time limit, unless the other party agrees to cross-examine the evidence.

2. Where a party adds or modifies a litigation claim or raises a counterclaim, it shall do so before the expiration of the time limit for presenting evidence. 3. Where the parties have real difficulties in submitting evidence within the time limit for the presentation of evidence, they shall apply to the people's court for an extension of time to present evidence within the time limit for the presentation of evidence, and with the permission of the people's court, the time limit for the presentation of evidence may be appropriately extended, and where the parties still have difficulty submitting evidence materials within the time limit for the presentation of evidence, they may submit another application for an extension, and the people's court shall decide whether to approve it. 4. The parties and their litigants may apply to the people's court for investigation and collection of evidence in accordance with the provisions of Article 17 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, and the people's court shall decide whether to allow it.

5. A party's application for a witness to appear in court to testify shall be submitted 10 days before the expiration of the time limit for presenting evidence, and shall be approved by the people's court. 6. Upon the application of the parties, the people's court may organize the parties to exchange evidence before the trial. The time for the exchange of evidence may be agreed upon by the parties and approved by the people's court, or may be designated by the people's court.

Where the people's court organizes the parties to exchange evidence, the time limit for presenting evidence is completed on the date of the exchange of evidence. Where parties apply for an extension of time to present evidence and are approved by the people's court, the date of evidence exchange is to be extended accordingly. 7. If the parties provide new evidence in the first-instance trial procedure, it shall be submitted before the first-instance trial or during the trial.

Article 67 of the Civil Procedure Law: Parties have the responsibility to provide evidence for their own claims. The people's court shall investigate and collect evidence that the parties and their litigants are unable to collect on their own for objective reasons, or evidence that the people's court finds necessary for the trial of the case. The people's courts shall follow legally-prescribed procedures to comprehensively and objectively review and verify evidence.

Article 69: People's courts receiving evidence materials submitted by parties shall issue receipts, indicating the name of the evidence, the number of pages, the number of copies, the original or photocopy, and the time of receipt, and so forth, and have the handling personnel sign or affix a seal.