Comment On The Case Of Guarantee Contract Dispute About Tianjiao Company V.Jiaxing Bank

The case of the contract dispute is a kind of criminal case,and the determination of the validity of the contract of the main contract plays an important role in the determination of the case.Natural rubber company and Jiaxing Bank to ensure that the contract dispute is about the debtor was sentenced to the crime of loan fraud,the creditor Jiaxing Bank and the guarantor of natural rubber company to ensure the contract dispute,the main controversy in this case is the main contract "working capital loan contract" The validity of the contract,from the contract "the maximum amount of guarantee the effectiveness of the contract" and whether the Bank of Jiaxing Bank should return the three aspects of the company’s compensation.The validity of the main contract "working capital loan contract" should be identified in two cases.In the case of creditors suspected of fraud,the creditor is usually a financial institution such as a bank.If the bank and its staff have obvious fault or illegal lending in the process of lending,the loan contract is of course invalid;in the case of the debtor’s suspected fraud,Although the validity of the loan contract is different,the Supreme Law establishes the effective rules of the civil loan contract.In this case,the "working capital loan contract" is not a "legal form to cover up the purpose of illegal" contract,but the fraudulent acts of third party interests of the revocable contract,the creditor Jiaxing Bank did not exercise the revocation,the main contract "working capital Loan contract "as valid contract.For the validity of the contract from the contract "the maximum amount of guarantee",we should first determine the validity of Article 12.2 of the independent guarantee clause agreed between Jiaxing Bank and Tianjiao Company in the "Maximum Guarantee Contract".The independent guarantee is applicable only to the field of foreign trade and can not be applied in the field of domestic civil and commercial trade activities,so the independent guarantee clause is invalid.In this case,Article 12.2 of the parties to the case is invalid,and the determination of the validity of the"maximum guarantee contract" still applies the attribute rule.According to the guarantee contract from the property rules,the main contract "working capital loan contract" is valid,"the maximum guarantee contract" should also be effective.For Jiaxing Bank whether the return of natural rubber company should be the issue of compensation should be combined with the " Guarantee Law" Article 5 to understand the understanding.Natural rubber company does not have a disclaimer,should bear the responsibility of the guarantee,Jiaxing Bank without the return of natural rubber company has paid all the compensation.