The Contract Part of the Civil Code does not uniformly list the circumstances under which a contract is invalid, but provides in Article 508 that "if there is no provision on the validity of a contract in this Part, the provisions of Chapter VI of Part I of this Law shall apply", that is, it shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI of the General Provisions "Civil Juristic Acts". According to the provisions of Chapter VI of the General Provisions, there are five types of invalidity of contracts. Lawyer Ma Li of Beijing Zhonghengxin Law FirmAccording to the legal points and adjudication guidelines, rightKey points of the Civil Code "contract invalidity".The analysis has been sorted out and summarized for your reference.
Civil juristic acts carried out by persons without capacity for civil conduct are invalid.
The so-called persons without capacity for civil conduct refer to: (1) minors under the age of 8; (2) adults who are unable to recognize their own behavior; and (3) minors over the age of 8 who are unable to recognize their own behavior. Inability to recognize one's own behavior, which refers to intellectual or mental health reasons; Those who are unable to recognize their own conduct due to intoxication are not persons lacking capacity for civil conduct, and must not claim that the conduct is invalid on this ground.
2.Conspiracy to understate hypocrisy means that the act is invalid
Article 146 of the Civil Code provides: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.
The typical manifestation is the "yin and yang contract" in the equity transfer contract. For tax evasion and other reasons, the two parties to the equity transfer signed two different equity transfer contracts. MentionThe contract submitted to the industrial and commercial bureau for change registration is a "yang contract", which is lower; What the parties are really executing is another contract (or supplementary agreement, drawer agreement), commonly known as a "yin contract".
3.Acts that violate the mandatory provisions on the validity of laws, administrative regulations, and administrative regulations are invalid.
Article 153, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code provides: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.
The difference with Article 52, Paragraph 5 of the Contract Law is that the above-mentioned provisions of the Civil Code provide for exceptions, that is, unless the mandatory provisions do not lead to the invalidity of the civil juristic act.
4.Civil juristic acts that are contrary to public order and good customs are invalid.
Paragraph 2 of Article 153 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil juristic acts that are contrary to public order and good customs are invalid. Theoretically, it is referred to as "ineffective rebelliousness".
The so-called public order and good customs refer to public order and good customs, that is, the social and public interests stipulated in Article 52, Paragraph 4 of the Contract Law. Political order, financial order, and so forth that involve the public interest of an unspecified number of people also fall within the scope of public order.
5.Malicious collusion to harm the interests of others is invalid.
Article 154 of the Civil Code stipulates that civil juristic acts in which the actor maliciously colludes with the counterparty to harm the lawful rights and interests of others are invalid. Compared with Article 52, Paragraph 2 of the Contract Law, the above-mentioned provisions of the Civil Code no longer distinguish between the types of subjects whose interests are damaged (the state, collective, or third party), but uniformly stipulate that they are "others".
Because the legitimate rights and interests of civil subjects are protected by law, as long as they harm the legitimate rights and interests of others, they should be denied by the law, and there is no need to draw more snakes to distinguish between different types.