Seeking Economic Law Case Analysis Good can be chased points

Where malicious collusion harms the interests of the state, the collective, or others, the contract shall be invalid.

The General Principles of the Civil Law, the Contract Law and the Auction Law all have provisions.

1. Article 52 of the Contract Law: A contract shall be invalid under any of the following circumstances:

1) One party concludes a contract by means of fraud or coercion, harming the interests of the state;

2) Malicious collusion, harming the interests of the state, the collective, or a third party;

2. Article 37 of the Auction Law of the People's Republic of China: "Malicious collusion between bidders and between bidders and auctioneers shall not harm the interests of others." ”

Article 65: "Anyone who violates the provisions of Article 37 of this Law by maliciously colluding with each other or between bidders and auctioneers, causing damage to others, shall be invalid and shall be liable for compensation in accordance with law." The administrative department for industry and commerce shall impose a fine of not less than 10% but not more than 30% of the maximum price payable on the bidders who participate in malicious collusion; Auctioneers who participate in malicious collusion shall be fined not less than 10% but not more than 50% of the maximum price due. ”

To judge whether a contract is valid, we must first know whether B is really "turning a blind eye", and it cannot be said that they planned it in advance to mean that B will definitely "turn a blind eye". This is an unclear thing, if it is realistic, B will definitely deny seeing E**, at this time, no one can explain clearly, even if you know that B is unreasonable, but the court only rules that the contract is valid. But given that this is an 'example', the title says that B pretends not to see it, says that the statutory time for reply has expired, that the gavel has been finalized, and that he sells the painting to C - in this way, B violates the principle ......of good faith and trustworthiness, and although he has signed a contract, it is not protected by law, and the court can invalidate the contract

I hope you are satisfied with this answer ......

First, the claims of Shenzhen manufacturers can be upheld by the courts.

When it comes to the performance of the law, because Zhang Ming was originally a salesman of the company, the employer neither announced his resignation, nor did he have a sealed contract, Zhang Ming pretended to be the company to retaliate against the company, and the Shenzhen manufacturer could be considered to be a salesman of the garment factory without knowing it, so it constituted a performance, so the Shenzhen manufacturer could be supported by the court.

Second, Zhang Ming's conduct constituted contract fraud, but did not constitute the crime of contract fraud. The purpose of Zhang Ming's signing of the false contract was to retaliate against the original unit, and there was no illegal gain in the signing of the false contract, so it did not constitute an element of the crime of contract fraud, but because his false contract would cause economic losses and damage to the goodwill of the original unit, Zhang Ming's behavior constituted contract fraud, which violated the principle of honesty and trustworthiness in the general principles of civil law, so Zhang Ming assumed the liability for the loss of the clothing company.

1. Qingyuan Company violated the "Anti-Unfair Burial and Careful Bending Competition Law".

Article 14.

2. The prize sales of Qingwan Xiaoyin Company constituted an act of unfair competition under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law, because it violated the provisions of Article 13, Paragraph 3 of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

3. In order to protect his own interests, A can take Bus Company C and Farmer B as defendants respectively. Reason: Privity of contract.

4. (1) The deposit clause and the liquidated damages clause can only be used one, and the part of the deposit exceeding 20% is invalid; （2）ac；（3）bc。

5. (1) The court did not support the software company's claim.

According to the provisions of the Labor Contract Law, there are only two circumstances in which the employee can be agreed to pay liquidated damages. They are as follows: First, if the employer provides special training expenses for the employee and provides him with professional and technical training, it may agree on the service period and liquidated damages, and if the employee violates the service period agreement, it shall pay the liquidated damages to the employer in accordance with the agreement.

Second, if the employer and the employee agree on a non-compete clause, they may agree on liquidated damages, and if the employee violates the non-compete agreement, the employee shall pay liquidated damages to the employer. In addition, when applying the liquidated damages clause, it is stipulated that the amount of liquidated damages shall not exceed the training fees provided by the employer, and the liquidated damages required by the employer to be paid by the employee shall not exceed the training expenses that should be apportioned for the unfulfilled part of the service period. Except for the above two circumstances, the employer shall not require the employee to pay liquidated damages.

2) The company shall refund the deposit. Reason: When an employer recruits a worker, it shall not seize the worker's resident ID card and other documents, and shall not require the worker to provide a guarantee or collect property from the worker in any other name.

3) 5-year labor contract, probation period of 4 months in accordance with the regulations. The salary during the probationary period shall not be lower than 80% of the minimum wage of the same position in the employer or the salary agreed in the labor contract, and shall not be lower than the minimum wage standard of the place where the employer is located.

Article 19: If the term of the labor contract is more than three months but less than one year, the probationary period shall not exceed one month; If the term of the labor contract is more than one year but less than three years, the probationary period shall not exceed two months; For fixed-term and indefinite-term labor contracts of more than three years, the probationary period shall not exceed six months.

The same employer and the same employee can only agree on a probationary period once.

A probationary period shall not be agreed upon in a labor contract with a term of completion of a certain work task, or where the term of the labor contract is less than three months.

The probationary period is included in the term of the employment contract. If the labor contract only stipulates a probationary period, the probationary period shall not be established, and the period shall be the term of the labor contract.

Article 20: The salary of a worker during the probationary period shall not be lower than 80% of the minimum wage of the same position in the employer or the wage agreed in the labor contract, and shall not be lower than the minimum wage standard of the place where the employer is located.

Same issue twice online).

1. I think the guarantee contract is invalid. First of all, the company's branches cannot undertake to provide external guarantees, because they do not have the "personality" stipulated in the law. Secondly, although the company later added an authorization, the guarantee contract was signed by the sales department, and it was also stamped with the departmental seal of the sales department (because it is not reflected in this case, so let's think so).

2. Joint and several liability. In accordance with the provisions of the law, if there is an agreement on the guarantee method in the guarantee contract, the agreed guarantee method shall be followed, and if the agreement is unclear, it shall be jointly and severally. In general, bank loans in reality are very rare, and there are very few general guarantees.

3. No, the guarantee contract between the Municipal Industrial and Commercial Bank of China and the Automobile Dealership Department is invalid. Because the Municipal Industrial and Commercial Bank of China signed with the other party when it knew that it did not have the ability to sign a guarantee contract. Therefore, the Municipal Industrial and Commercial Bank of China should bear the responsibility for the invalidity of the contract to a certain extent.

Personal opinion, I hope it helps you.