The Analysis On Series Of Debt In Kind Cases

As for the trial of disputes over payment of debts in remuneration,the judgment of judicial practice is manifested in the shift from the determination of the contract as the important thing to the contract of consent,but there are disputes over the specific issues and different understandings about its specific legal composition.This paper intends to select four cases and combine the academic debate on legal issues in such cases to analyze the related issues of debt-in-kind in judicial practice,mainly involving the same nature of debt-in-kind,different types of legal composition and its effectiveness review.Substitution for payment of debts in remuneration should be a promissory contract,which can take effect if both parties agree on their intentions.The act of payment is not an effective requirement for the settlement of debts in remuneration of remuneration in remuneration.The validity of the contract should be determined according to the general rules of the validity of the contract.Substitute liquidation contract theory holds that before the actual delivery of the subject matter,the contract is established but not effective.According to this theory,the parties have to perform a main contract obligation which is not effective.Once the contract is eliminated,there is an inherent legal contradiction.Subsequent theory of Substitute liquidation reservation does not solve this problem very well,and it is consistent with the effect of the promised contract theory and does not exist independently.It is necessary.An agreement on repayment of debts in kind before the expiration of the time limit for performance.Assignment-guaranteed debt-in-property contract does not violate the legal principle of real right,nor is it suitable for real right law to adjust the real right of atypical security.It is sufficient to adjust the general rules of civil law.The application of prohibition of settling-in-property contract should be limited.Unless it violates the principle of fairness,it should not be regarded as invalid,and it may constitute a legal act with conditions for rescission.The legal relationship between the two contracts has nothing to do with the validity review.When the time limit for performance expires,there are different legal constitutions in accordance with the agreement of the parties: either to pay off the debt in lieu of the property;or to act as a conditional legal act;or to change the debt or to pay off the new debt.If the parties explicitly agree to change the debt,only the new debt exists,and the old debt is eliminated because the new debt takes effect;if there is no agreement or no explicit agreement,the new debt should be presumed to bepaid off.In order to protect the creditor's creditor's rights,if any debt is fulfilled,the whole debt will be eliminated.