The Research Of The Issue Of Borrowing Other People’s Names To Buy Economically Affordable Housing

Recently,with the economic development,the price of house has soared up.Housing is not only a residence for living,but also an important form of investment.However,since the policy of purchasing limitation has come out in many cities,the phenomenon that people use others’ name to buy a house occurs constantly.For the cases that people use others’ name to buy a commercial residential building,a general agreement has been gradually reached in judicial practices,while for the similar cases of buying a economically affordable housing,the judicial criteria of courts to deal with this are different.The economically affordable housing is a policy-related commercial residence,and its purpose is to preserve the right of habitation for low-income people and has a significant influence on maintaining social equality and justice.The proper judicial practice of dealing with the case of borrowing others’ name to buy such housing contributes to the development of housing system in our country,and is crucial for achieving the original purpose of the government’s policy.There are four sections in this article.The first part is to put forward the question which will be discussed by the whole essay,and it starts with two relevant cases.Although these two cases have similar facts,the results turned out to be opposite.To deal with the disputes regarding borrowing others’ name to buy a house,the judicial criteria and outcome of courts are different.In this part,the writer sorts out such cases,and examines the thoughts of trials to deal with this problem.The second part is the analysis of the nature and validity of agreements of borrowing name to a house.In reference to the views of scholars in German and Taiwan and the judicial practice in our country,a conclusion that the case of borrowing names to buy a house is similar in nature with indirect agency is reached.According to the regulations concerning indirect agency in Contract Law,there are two legal relationships in this behaviour.The final legal result depends on the validity of agreements reached by borrower and lender of the name.The writer considers that the analysis of the validity of such agreements shall be based on the Article 52 of Contract Law and the specific facts.In the third part,the attribution of the ownership of such housing is discussed.The writer analyses this mainly from the prospective of the validity of purchasing agreements and whether this buying decision affects the interests of the third party.In the last part,writer provides some suggestions regarding legislation jurisdiction and administration to cope with the problems in current judicial practices.