On Returning Property After Invalidation Of Contract

A contract that has been declared invalid or revoked does not have legal effect,but it does not have any legal consequences,just does not have the results expected by the parties when they conclude the contract,even if the intention of the parties to produce,change or terminate civil rights and obligations stipulated in the contract cannot be realized.According to Article 157 of China’s Civil Code:after a civil juristic act is invalid,revoked or determined not to be effective,the property acquired by the actor due to the act shall be returned;if it is impossible or unnecessary to return,it shall be compensated at a discount.The party at fault shall compensate the other party for the losses thus incurred;if all parties are at fault,they ’shall bear their respective responsibilities.But the simple law is not enough to deal with the complex judicial practice,I listed in the first part of the paper two cases of opposite judgment,there is no accurate legal provisions of the judge’s judgment.After the invalidation of the contract,many core issues still need to be detailed and clear:first,the applicable basis:after the invalidation of the contract,what kind of provisions should be applied to the relationship between the parties based on the payment of the invalid contract?2、Scope of return:after the contract is invalid,how to determine the scope of return and how to understand the relationship between Article 157 of the civil code and the relevant provisions of the property code of the civil code?3、If the contract is illegal,can the property be collected?In the second part of the paper,combining with the real right change mode stipulated in the real right part of the civil code of China,and according to the nature and existing state of the property,I divide the payment property into four types:movable property,real property,money and labor service,and analyze the basis of the return claim that the payer can claim.It is concluded that the return of property stipulated in Article 157 of the contract part of the civil code is not a kind of claim,but a summary of several claim rights,which will also provide better protection for the property right of the owner.The third part analyzes the scope of property return.After the scope is refined,there are three problems:1.One party(payer)delivers the property according to the invalid contract or at the request of the other party(receiver),and the property generates income during the period of the receiver’s possession.When the contract is invalid and the property needs to be returned,should the income be returned at the same time?2.What is the scope of return after the subject matter is damaged or lost?3.The principle of restitution of payment for illegal reasons?The fourth part is an introduction to this problem in the civil law of various countries,with Germany as the example and France as the example.Throughout the legislation outside the country,there are two main legislative models for the return of property after the contract is invalid.One is to apply the relevant rules of unjust enrichment,the other is to adjust by the special return law or return rules.The former is mainly civil legislation of civil law countries or regions,while the latter is mainly civil legislation of common law countries.In addition,"the French debt law reform in 2016 set up a new" return unit "in the civil code,which also assigned the return after the contract was invalid to the" return"unit for adjustment.The fifth part is the legislative proposal.Referring to the new debt law model of France,a separate chapter of "return" is set up in the "contract part",which not only regulates the return liability caused by the invalidity of the contract,but also applies to the return liability caused by unjust enrichment and management without cause under certain conditions.There are two reasons:first,the existing unjust enrichment system in China is not enough to undertake the "heavy responsibility" of returning the responsibility after the invalid contract.The existing provisions of regulating unjust enrichment system in China are extremely simple,which can not effectively adjust the legal relationship of unjust enrichment,let alone make it adjust the return after the contract is invalid.Therefore,the German model is not suitable for China’s basic situation.Second,"the problems faced by China in designing the debt system are very similar to the situation before the reform of French debt law.".