Legal case questions, urgent answers, ask for a legal case question, urgent

1.A can carry out this transaction, and if he is over 16 years old and has independent economic income, he can be regarded as having full capacity for civil conduct.

2.Conformity, civil acts, the principle of autonomy of will.

3.It is an act whose effect is pending and can be revoked, for the same reasons as 1, he does not have full capacity for civil conduct.

The problem you are talking about is that A is over 17 years old, and she has full capacity for civil conduct in accordance with the law, she has the right to independent control, and does not need to use a guardian to exercise guardianship, and the reason why the department store does not return the goods is in accordance with the law, and there is nothing improper. If A is a 15-year-old student, A's buying and selling behavior is still valid, and his buying and selling relationship does not violate the principle of fairness. At the same time, there is no quality problem, so the sales relationship is a legal civil act.

Case: On September 1, 2005, Mr. Zhang entered a foreign-funded company after graduating from graduate school and signed a five-year labor contract with the company. In order to improve Zhang's work skills, on February 1, 2008, the company sent Zhang to Japan for technical training for two months, spending a total of 50,000 yuan on various training expenses, and signed a training agreement with Zhang.

The agreement stipulates that after Zhang receives training, he must serve the company for another four years, and if Zhang wants to leave the company during these four years, he must pay 40,000 yuan to the company as liquidated damages. In addition, the company and Zhang did not revise the term of the labor contract.

On August 31, 2010, Zhang's employment contract with the company expired, and Zhang proposed that the two parties terminate the employment contract, but the company argued that the two parties had signed a training agreement, Zhang's service period had not expired, and Zhang should continue to work for the company. If Zhang must leave the company, he should pay 40,000 yuan in liquidated damages to the company in accordance with the training agreement.

Q: 1) How long should Zhang work for the company?

2) If Zhang needs to pay liquidated damages, how much should he pay?

Analysis: 1. Work to the expiration of the service period, April 1, 2012;

2. The liquidated damages shall be paid proportionally, and the remaining service period shall be two years and five months, which is about 24,167 yuan (the liquidated damages required by the employer shall not exceed the training fee for the unfulfilled part of the service period).

Yes, yes.

Of course not. Because buying and selling is not in accordance with the corresponding civil capacity that she has.

1.Lin gave Xia an act of gift, because Xia said that he would pay back the money to Lin, and Lin said that he didn't have to pay back the money.

2.Article 6 of the Opinions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China (for Trial Implementation) stipulates: "Where a person who lacks or has limited capacity for civil conduct accepts a reward, gift, or remuneration, others may not claim that the above acts are invalid on the grounds that the actor lacks or has limited capacity for civil conduct."

That is to say, the civil act of pure profit carried out by the minor is valid, and does not require the consent of his guardian (that is, the legal person), and Lin cannot claim that Xia's act is invalid.

1) Lin's behavior of giving Xia 2 yuan is a gift, Xia said to go home and return him, but Lin said no. This constitutes a gift contractual relationship.

2) Xia's behavior is valid. An 11-year-old has a concept of winning the lottery and knows what it means to win the lottery. He has the right to dispose of the 2 yuan, and the proceeds are of course his.

I understand that it is a loan relationship (because Xia said to go home and pay him back, even if Xia is 11 years old). Therefore, Xia's behavior is valid, because it is valid to use borrowed money to touch the prize.

RMB is appropriated and owned as a general equivalent, and the act of gifting.

Restricting the pure profit of civil actors is valid.

1. Because the statute of limitations is calculated from the agreed repayment time. In October 1990, Wang noted on the note that the repayment of the money at the end of the month was reconfirmed by the reconfirmation of the debt, and the statute of limitations was recalculated from that time; Zhang's claim can be supported by the court, but there is no legal basis for Zhang's request to pay interest on the loan.

2. A hired someone to plough the field, and the hired worker mistakenly plowed several acres of land to be cultivated by family B. Because B is profitable, but there is no legal basis, but B is not at fault.

(1) The land transfer contract signed between RiRishin Company and Hongye Company is invalid. The reason is that, according to the law, the transfer of land use rights should meet three conditions:

First, the land use right must be obtained by transfer for compensation. Second, in accordance with the provisions of the transfer contract, all the land use right transfer fees have been paid and the land use right certificate has been obtained. The third is to carry out investment and development in accordance with the provisions of the transfer contract, which belongs to the housing construction project, and more than 25 of the total development investment shall be completed.

Rigixin Company did not carry out investment and development in accordance with the regulations, but directly transferred the transferred land to Hongye Company, which is an illegal transfer of state-owned land use rights.

2) The supplementary agreement signed between RiRixin Company and Hongye Company is invalid. The reason is that the right to use the land transferred by the supplementary agreement belongs to the transportation company, and the property rights belong to the transportation company, not to Ririxin, so Ririxin has no right to transfer the land.

3) The solution to this case is as follows: First, the people's land administrative departments at or above the county level shall confiscate the illegal gains of Ririxin Company and Hongye Company. Second, it was confirmed that the supplementary agreement signed between Ridayshin and Hongye Company was invalid.

Third, the company and Hongye Company were fined for less than 50 yuan of illegal gains. Fourth, the persons directly responsible for the illegal transfer of land shall be given administrative sanctions in accordance with the law; where a crime is constituted, criminal responsibility is pursued in accordance with law.