What is the answer to Article 52 of the Contract Law? 200

You can claim that the total contract signed with this product (toothpaste) is invalid.

Article 52 of the Contract Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that: "A contract shall be invalid under any of the following circumstances: (1) one party concludes a contract by means of fraud or coercion, which damages the interests of the state; (2) Malicious collusion or damage to the interests of the state, the collective or a third party; (3) concealing an illegal purpose in a lawful form; (4) Harming the public interest; (5) Violating the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations.

Specifically: (1) Entering into a contract by means of fraud or coercion, harming national interests.

According to Article 68 of the Opinions on Several Issues Concerning the General Principles of the Civil Law, the so-called fraud refers to one party deliberately informing the other party of false information, or deliberately concealing the true situation, so as to induce the other party to make a false expression of intent. A contract concluded by fraud arises on the basis of an expression of intent made by the defrauded party as a result of a misunderstanding of the fraudulent act.

A civil act committed by fraud is a civil act in which the perpetrator falls into a misunderstanding under the intention of another party to defraud. The following conditions must be met to constitute fraud:

One is that there must be fraud by fraudsters. Fraud is the act that causes the victim of fraud to fall into a certain error, deepen the mistake or keep the mistake alive. There are three main manifestations, namely, fabricating false facts, concealing true facts, and altering true facts.

Second, there must be fraudulent intent of the fraudster. Fraudulent intent is the intention to cause others to fall into a mistake due to the fraudulent act of the fraudster, and to express the intention based on this error.

Third, there must be a mistake that the defrauded person has fallen into as a result of the fraudulent act of the fraudster. "Error" here refers to a defect in the understanding of the contents of the contract and other important circumstances. Traditional civil law holds that the fact that the defrauded person must be involved in error must be committed to fraud in order to constitute fraud, and the defrauded party has not fallen into error, although the fraudster has fraudulent intent and behavior, and the legal consequences of fraud do not occur in civil law.

Fourth, there must be an expression of intent by the defrauded party due to error. The so-called expression of intent made by the defrauded party due to error means that there is a causal relationship between the error and the expression of intent. A misconception must be the direct motive for the expression of intent to constitute fraud.

Fifth, fraud violates the principle of good faith that should be followed in civil activities. The principle of good faith requires people to pay attention to credit in civil activities, abide by their promises, be honest and not deceive, and pursue their own interests without harming the interests of others and society.

As for the answer to Article 52 of the Contract Law, it must be protected according to the rights and interests of the parties.

In fact, it is not so important whether the manufacturer knows whether the product is qualified or not, the important thing is that the contract is invalid, because the violation of the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations is invalid, because the toothpaste violates a number of laws and regulations, your friend can claim that the total contract is invalid.

The invalidity of the contract shall be strictly in accordance with the law, and in this case you mentioned, I think there is a possibility of fraud or major misunderstanding, and you do not need to prove whether you know whether the manufacturer understands the quality of the product, and your contract is a voidable contract, and you can go to the court to exercise the right of revocation. Article 52 of the Contract Law has actually been amended by the General Provisions of the Civil Code and the Civil Code, which will soon come into force.

Evidence is needed to prove that it is a substandard product, and the other party can be held accountable if there is relevant evidence.

Finding a solution based on evidence is that there are different solutions to the invalidity of a contract, voidability and breach of contract.

Regarding Article 52 of the Contract Law, the answer is concerned about not knowing.

Article 52 of the Contract Law answers that only work can have a way.

Invalidity of the contract: (1) One party concludes the contract by means of fraud or coercion, which damages the interests of the state. (2) Maliciously colluding to harm the interests of the state, the collective, or a third party.

3) Concealing illegal purposes in a lawful form. (4) Harming the public interest. (5) Violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations.

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) Maliciously colluding to harm the interests of the state, the collective, or a third party. 3) Concealing illegal purposes in a lawful form. (4) Harming the public interest. (5) Violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations.

2. Therefore, paragraph 2 of Article 52 of the Contract Law reads: A contract that maliciously colludes and harms the interests of the state, the collective or a third party is invalid.

Legal Analysis: Article 52 of the Contract Law: A contract is invalid under any of the following circumstances:

1) One party concludes a contract by means of fraud or coercion, which harms the interests of the state.

(2) Maliciously colluding to harm the interests of the state, the collective, or a third party.

3) Concealing illegal purposes in a lawful form.

(4) Harming the public interest.

(5) Violating mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations.

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 144:Civil juristic acts carried out by persons lacking capacity for civil conduct are invalid.

Article 153:Civil juristic acts that violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations are invalid. However, the mandatory provisions do not lead to the invalidity of the civil juristic act.

Civil juristic acts that are contrary to public order and good customs are invalid.

Article 154:Civil juristic acts where the perpetrator maliciously colludes with their counterparts to harm the lawful rights and interests of others are invalid.

Legal basisArticle 505 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China The validity of a contract concluded by the parties beyond the scope of business shall be determined in accordance with Section 3 of Chapter 6 of Part I of this Law and the relevant provisions of this Part, and the invalidity of Taiwan Tong shall not be confirmed solely on the basis of exceeding the scope of business.

After the expiration of the Contract Law, the content of the original Article 52 is now stipulated in Section 3 of Chapter VI of the Civil Code, and the main content of the Contract Law includes contracts concluded by persons without civil capacity, and contracts concluded by actors and counterparties with false expressions of intent; and contracts that are contrary to public order and good morals are invalid.

Article 144 of the Civil Code.

Civil juristic acts carried out by persons without capacity for civil conduct are invalid.

Article 146.

Civil juristic acts carried out by the actor and the counterpart with false expressions of intent are invalid.

The effectiveness of civil juristic acts concealed by false expressions of intent is to be handled in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.

Article 153.

Civil juristic acts that violate the mandatory provisions of laws and administrative regulations are invalid. However, the mandatory provisions do not lead to the invalidity of the civil juristic act.

Civil juristic acts that are contrary to public order and good customs are invalid.

Article 154.

Civil juristic acts in which the actor maliciously colludes with the counterpart, harming the lawful rights and interests of others, are invalid.

Article 155.

Civil juristic acts that are invalid or revoked are not legally binding from the beginning.