Research On Legal Issues Of Deposit Disputes In View Of Papers Of Civil Judgement

It's deep-rooted in the citizens of our country that deposit is a way of guaranteeing the successful performance of the civil and commercial contract relations.Recent years have seen an increasing number of litigations caused by deposit dispute.Lack of essential and sufficient provisions of deposit as legal basis to settle the dispute in laws,administrative regulations,local regulations and relevant judicial interpretations brings a lot of difficulties in the practical work of the court,which even gives rise to the result that identical cases get different judgements.This thesis generalizes the main types of civil and commercial litigations caused by deposit dispute from 73 court awards elected in the case resource database on pkulaw.cn and minutely discusses the controversial issues of these types in the hope of making a little bit contribution to judicial practice in China.This thesis,in addition to the introduction and conclusion,falls into four parts.The first part is an overview on 73 court awards of deposit dispute.It firstly introduces five main types of litigations caused by deposit dispute in labor employment contract,contract agreements,lease contracts,sales contracts and contracts of service.Then it analyzes the reasons and characteristics of each type mentioned above.Finally,it points out the principal controversy in these types of litigation mentioned above,which will be elaborated in the following parts.The second part is about the basis,subject and limitation of the deposit efund.When the main obligations of the contract has been fulfilled,but the secondary obliga tions has not,does the mortgagor has the right to request the return of the deposit? How to return the deposit if the receiving party of the contract doesn't exist any more? Weather the litigation caused by deposit dispute in labor employment contract should be applicable of statute of limitations? Actually,there are two opposite results of judgement concerning such questions in practice.Through analysis,this part gives the point that deposit has been established to guarantee the performance of the contract.when the obligations have been fulfilled,deposit has lost its meaning to exist as well.Therefore,the return of the deposit is based on the situation that principal and secondary obligations have been fulfilled.When main contract' subject has been eliminated by the acts of the third party and meanwhile there exists successor who obtains credits and debts,the obligation to return the deposit should be taken by both t he successor and the third party.Claim for deposit belongs to one of the restitution claims,so it should comply with the statute of limitations system.The third part is about deposit affiliation based on invalid master contract.There exists two approaches in practice to handle the dilemma weather the deposit's belonging to the mortgagor is protected by law or not,if the master contract is confirmed as invalid.Through what has been analyzed above,this part draws the conclusion that invalid master contract makes the property obtained by mortgagee through the contract as unjust enrichment which should be returned to the mortgagor.The last part is about the determination of deposit amount and interest.This part points out that different solutions have been used in practice to deal with the situation weather it is feasible to adjust deposit amount when one party breaches the contract and the problem that should the deposit interest be started counting on breaching date or on right claiming date.Through what has been analyzed above,this part draws the conclusion that the determination of the deposit amount is based on the principle of autonomy,which both parties should abide by and should not be adjusted.Besides,the defaulting party should refund the interest which is calculated from the breaching date for violating the principle of good faith and for the state of unjust enrichment.