A Study On Appointment Contract System

In 2012,the Supreme People’s Court recognized the appointment contract legally for the first time in the form of judicial interpretation,which did indeed fill in the gaps in our legislation regarding reservation contracts.However,for judicial practice,only the regulation of judicial interpretation is far from enough.It cannot meet the needs of the court to handle appointment contract cases.As a result,it is difficult for the court to form a uniform standard when the referee decides,and a situation similar to the case’s different judgment results has caused many situations.Referee disputes.Therefore,this article will discuss the appointment system in terms of how to determine the legal validity of appointments and appointments and the remedy for breach of contract in conjunction with judicial precedents and relevant provisions of the Contract Law.The main points of this study are the following three parts.The first part introduces the basic connotation of the appointment contract and distinguishes it from the related concepts that are easily confused.The term "pre-reservation contract" refers to the contract that the parties agree to sign this contract in the future.It is independent,binding,and deterministic.In judicial practice,the main criterion for determining an appointment contract is: whether the party expresses the intention of concluding the contract in the future.When it is impossible to determine the meaning of the parties concerned,it will also judge whether it is an appointment contract according to the contents of the contract;The second part starts with the legal validity of the appointment contract,and believes that the legal validity of the reservation contract refers to the binding legal relationship established by the reservation contract for both parties.On the basis of an analysis of the current mainstream theories of the theoretical circle,namely,"necessity to negotiate," "should contract," "content," and "consider," as a basis,the judicial practice in the court of the appointment contract Referential attitude of legal effectiveness.In the judicial practice,when the court determines the validity of the appointment contract,it believes that the reservation contract has a majority of the parties that only produce the negotiation effect,and some courts think that the reservation contract has the effect of contracting.After analyzing the legal effects of appointment contracts from theoretical and judicial practice,it was found that “should be said to contract” to grant the obligatory parties the right to request contractually and to avoid appointments because the negotiation is easy to performand the contract is concluded in a form.Occurrence is most consistent with the purpose of setting up a reservation contract system.The third part is the study on the remedy for breach of appointment of the contract.The remedies include compulsory performance,deposit,penalty clause and damages.Compulsory execution is in essence a succession to the legal effect of the contract of “shall contract”,and it respects the intended expression of the parties’ expectations.In the "Contract Law",in order to ensure the conclusion of this contract,it is often agreed to pay a certain amount of deposit.Therefore,it is not indispensable to apply the deposit to the reservation contract system.As regards the deposit amount,the reservation contract refers to the behavior of this contract.The amount of the subject matter of the contract has great uncertainty,so it is considered that it is not subject to the 20% limitation in the “Law on Security”.With regard to the damages for the appointment of the contract,this article believes that the violation of the appointment must bear the liability for damages.If one party violates the obligations of the reservation contract,compensation shall be made within a range that does not exceed the reliance interest.