Ask a legal expert for answers!! Seek legal knowledge!!!

A contract is an agreement between the parties and can generally only be binding on the parties to the contract, and other persons and units other than the parties to the contract are not bound by the contract unless they voluntarily accept it. The reason is simple, no one can enter into a contract with each other to restrict the rights of others.

If your father has signed a contract with the other party that you cannot give your house to another person to deal in detergent products before the other party leaves the house that he rented later, this contract clause is of course valid for your father, and your father should require the user not to deal in detergent products whether he rents or uses it to others, otherwise your father will constitute a breach of contract and need to bear the liability for breach of contract.

If the contract stipulates that no one who uses the house after the other party moves out is not allowed to deal in detergent products, of course, your father must abide by the contract and cannot be unable to deal in detergent products, but he cannot restrict other persons and units other than the parties to the contract from dealing in detergent products. As for whether your father needs to be liable for breach of contract after other people or units deal in detergent products, it must be based on other provisions of the contract.

It is recommended that you collect all the contract and related materials, and consult with the local legal authorities or people in detail to find a legal and feasible solution.

First of all, it depends on whether the agreement has been notarized or certified by two or more certifiers: the second is the equal competition mentioned in the economic law, this agreement is obviously unfair, and you can apply for revocation. You can consult with your local legal aid agency for this step.

Let's handle a detergent product with peace of mind. Take 10,000 steps back, and when your store is opened, it is impossible for the court to force you to open the door!

As for the case itself, it mainly depends on the content of the agreement and the background of the agreement. If you want to know more, consult a lawyer.

I feel incredible about the understanding of the law on the first floor, "how to file a case if you don't report it".

China's laws clearly stipulate the types of civil cases that can only be handled after a complaint, and in addition to these civil cases of private prosecution, as long as there are criminal facts in other cases, they must be filed and investigated. According to this reasoning, isn't it ridiculous that a murderer can escape filing a case and legal punishment as long as he kills the person who might report the crime?

It is also ridiculous to mention that "there will inevitably be an umbrella, and this is not a problem that can be solved by law", and it is not something that can be solved by law, so what can be solved?

Hello, your question is not difficult to understand.

First of all, the so-called Article 402 of the Contract Law stipulates that the trustee handles the entrusted affairs in its own name, and if the third party knows the ** relationship between the principal and the trustee, then the legal relationship between the third party and the client directly occurs between the entrusted matters, which is "anonymous"; However, if the third party expressly stipulates in the contract formed by the entrusted matter that the contract is only binding between the trustee and the third party, the legal relationship arising from the matter does not directly have legal effect on the client.

Secondly, in terms of the analysis of the above two situations, the first is a normal situation, that is, the third party knows that the person with whom the business is negotiated is the trustee, and also knows that the principal with whom the real legal relationship is made, and the validity of the agreement and contract reached between the third party and the trustee on the entrusted matters is directly attributable to the third party and the client, which does not go beyond the relativity of the contract, and it cannot only look at who is the signature on the contract, but also who is the real subject in the contract. The second situation is that although the third party knows that the settlor is A and the trustee is B, the third party believes that the trustee is more powerful, or is worried that the third party will not perform the entrustment relationship between contracts A and B and it will be difficult to prove that the third party will escape responsibility; At the same time, in order to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the client and ensure that if there is evidence to prove that the matter has nothing to do with itself, it does not assume contractual obligations and responsibilities, etc., the third party directly stipulates in the contract that the subject of the contract is the trustee B himself, B performs the contractual obligations, and B enjoys the contractual rights.

Finally, in the first case, the third party can of course pursue the trustee. In the second case, it is not detached from the relativity of the contract, but the subject of the contract is the trustee and the third party, and the trustee does not perform the contractual obligations, because the third party knows that B is the trustee and clearly stipulates that the contract only binds the trustee and the third party, then the principal does not bear the contractual obligations and responsibilities, nor does it enjoy the contractual benefits.

1. The third party has the right of choice, and he can choose to claim the contractual rights from the trustee or the performance of the contract from the principal.

2. The detailed analysis is as follows:

Article 402 of the Contract Law stipulates: "If the contractor enters into a contract with a third party in its own name and within the scope of the principal's authorization, and the third party knows the relationship between the trustee and the principal at the time of entering into the contract, the contract directly binds the principal and the third party." ”

The conditions for the application of the law must be met: the trustee is engaged in affairs in his own name; The third party knows the relationship between the trustee and the settlor, that is, the third party is aware of it; The Trustee enters into a contract with a third party and does not exceed the authority agreed between the Trustee and the Client.

Trustor --- Trustee Trustee --- third party (knowing the existence of the entrustment contract).

Entrustment ** contract) (contractual relationship)-

Thus, there is no violation of the privity of contract. In this case, although the trustee is engaged in affairs in its own name, the third party knows that the trustee is not its own affairs, that is, the affairs of the principal, so the parties to the contract are bound by the principal and the third party. If the contract cannot be carried out smoothly due to the reasons of the trustee during the contract, the third party has the right to choose whether to choose the principal or the trustee to perform the contract.

If the contract cannot be carried out smoothly due to the reasons of the client, the trustee has the obligation to disclose the client to a third party so as to facilitate the normal conduct of the transaction and the social market order.

Absolutely; This situation is called a "breakthrough in the privity of contract", and according to Article 402 of the Contract Law, the principal other than the counterparty to such a contract is the third party of the contract, which is the so-called "disclosure system" that protects the interests of the third party.

The relativity of the contract mainly refers to the rights and obligations of both parties, which are not completely equivalent, but the rights of one party are basically the obligations of the other party, and its contractual liability can be pursued by the agreement of the contract. The liability of the contract can only be between the two parties of the subject, and if the third party wants to realize its rights and protect its own interests, it should be a separate contractual relationship between the third party and one of the parties to the contract, and cannot be completely equivalent. Therefore, the third party cannot pursue its contractual liability against the other party of the contract.

First of all, if the third party knows the relationship between the trustee and the client at the time of entering into the contract, the contract directly binds the principal and the third party, that is, it can directly pursue the client;

Second, if the trustee fails to perform its obligations to a third party due to reasons attributable to the settlor, the trustee shall disclose the settlor to the third party, and the third party may therefore choose the trustee or the settlor as the counterparty to claim its rights, but the third party shall not change the selected counterparty. 

The third party and the client are the counterparties of the contract.