On The Determination Of The Validity Of Contracts In Violation Of Compulsory Provisions

With the continuous development and improvement of my country’s socialist market economy,transactions among the people are also increasing day by day,and contracts are the most common form of business exchanges between equal entities.Civil law,as the most important departmental law for adjusting the personal and property relations between equal subjects,plays a key role in safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of the people and promoting social and economic development.So when a contract between equal subjects violates certain mandatory provisions in the civil law,how effective should it be.Article 153 of the latest "Civil Code" issued by my country clearly states: "Civil legal acts that violate laws and administrative regulations are invalid,unless the mandatory provisions do not cause the civil legal acts to be invalid." According to this paragraph of the "Civil Code" We can infer that a contract that violates mandatory provisions is not necessarily invalid,and there may also be other modes of effectiveness.However,in judicial practice,there is a phenomenon of equating violations of mandatory regulations with invalid contracts.This not only violates the original intention of the law makers,but also is not conducive to the long-term development of my country’s economy.The reasons for this phenomenon are diverse,both in terms of system design,and also related to the incomplete consideration of judges in this type of case in our country.Research on the effectiveness of contracts that violate mandatory provisions has always been a key field of civil law.Based on the above analysis,I began to sort out and explore the issue of determining the effectiveness of contracts that violate mandatory provisions,and take the Civil Code as the The focus of inquiry.This article is divided into four parts.The first part focuses on an overview of mandatory regulations,including the connotation,extension and identification standards,classification,and the important role of mandatory regulations in adjusting the effectiveness of contracts.A rough analysis of the above content has provided a basic understanding of the mandatory regulations.The second part sorts out the provisions on the validity of contracts that violate the mandatory provisions in the civil law of our country in various periods.Mainly based on the time context,from the "General Principles of Civil Law","Contract Law" and its judicial interpretations to "General Principles of Civil Law" and "Minutes of the Nine Peoples",through combing the legal provisions of various periods,we summarized the dichotomy of my country’s mandatory regulations.The existing problems mainly include the vague standard of dichotomy,the inadequate consideration of measuring the validity of the contract,and the dramatization of the trial logic to determine the validity of the contract.The third part is a specific analysis of the validity of the contract that violates the mandatory provisions.First,I carefully sorted out the number of mandatory provisions in each division of the Civil Code,and got a general understanding of the configuration of mandatory provisions in the Civil Code.Then,according to the legislative spirit of Article 153 of the Civil Code,it is analyzed that the validity of the contract that violates the mandatory provisions not only has an effect model of invalidity,but also has an effect model of undetermined,revocable and even effective.The fourth part puts forward suggestions for the dilemma of determining the validity of contracts that violate mandatory provisions in judicial practice.Suggestions to abandon the "dichotomy",re-categorize mandatory provisions,and explore the different legal effects that may result from violations of different types of mandatory provisions.,And through multiple channels to obtain cases to strengthen reasoning,and strive to provide new ideas for solving this problem in judicial practice,and propose to explore the legislative purpose of mandatory provisions,comprehensively weigh the interests of both parties,and strengthen the process of argumentation to overcome the logic of trial is dogmatic.