Study On The Validity Of The Contract In B Violation In Violation Of The Mandatory Provisions

The mandatory provisions in China’s legislation will be further classified as mandatory mandatory provisions and mandatory administrative regulations.The contract is ineffective in violation of the former,Violation of the latter’s validity in accordance with the specific circumstances.The move seems to be simple and simple,We only need to identify mandatory categories,and we can generally identify the effectiveness of contracts.But in fact,the connotation and denotation of mandatory provisions are uncertain.The standard of two points is not clear and useless,Judicial practice is also misled.And effective handling will lead to contradictions within the legal system.Through this article,The relationship between mandatory provisions and the effectiveness of contracts is essentially the relationship between the interests protected by compulsion and the performance interests of contracts,reflects the contest between the two values.In fact,all countries are faced with the problem of contract confirmation in violation of mandatory provisions.A variety of solutions have been put forward by the theorists,But all kinds of methods eventually returned to the interests protected by mandatory provisions and the performance of contractual performance.However,the interests protected by mandatory provisions and the performance interests of contracts are still too.This article is based on the judicial practice of our country,draw lessons from the legislative experience and theory of foreign countriesIt is proposed that we should break away from the two mandatory structure of our country.We should use proportional principle and combine more specific considerations to measure interest.In addition,we should also set up the invalidity of contract diversification,and the effective system of unilateral return and non enforcement The highlight and innovation of this article is to consolidate the above analysis into specific legal provisions.Provide specific guidance for judicial practice.