Research On The Nature And Legal Validity Of Paying-A-Debt-in-Kind Contract

As the development of the social economy grows,the requirements of both creditor debts have continuously improved the requirements for creditting,and the debt is more common in social life.In particular,because of the new crown epidemic,the production and operation of companies has been influenced deeply.In order to alleviate the impact of lacking of funds and strengthen their accounting management,they may take the way of replacement of material debt as a contract.However,in the existing laws in China,there is no clear proposing for the concept.The Supreme Court,High Court of Beijing province,and the High Court of Jiangsu released a serious of documents.And the process of dealing with the dispute is explained.However,these documents are based only on the defined effectiveness of the agreement time and debt time relationship with the debt seventh time,and has not fundamentally determined the nature of the material debt contract,and there is no controversy that is universally existing in practice.And different courts,the highest courtyards have also differ in different periods.The complexity of the morphology in practice,the court has a problem that there is a problem with the nature of the debt agreement,and cannot form a unified referee rule.This article is divided into four parts:In the first part,the necessary elements and basic boundary of the material debt contract has been clarified.Through the reflection of the relevant standards of the current theory and the principal-to-the-style contract,the contractual customization time is the definition of the standards,it shall be put forward to start with the characteristics of the qualified contract,and the meaning of "elimination of the original debt" is The standard will be divided into "destroyed the original debt" type by the material debt contract contract and the "non-destroyed original debt" type;Then,the next part analyzes the legal nature of the material debt.Through the discussion of existing three theories,regard the contract as the one which could be settled only with the agreement of the two litigants are more reasonable.On the basis of type,the "destroying the original debt" type is based on the change of the debt contract,and the changes in the debt and the generation are paid for two types."Non-destroying the original debt" type is usually set up a new debt,and does not constitute a clear reservation with guarantees and substitutes;The third part analyzes the legal efficacy of the material debt contract."Eliminate the original debt" type,according to the "most similar rules" of the Civil Law of my country,the debtor shall pay a responsibility for the relevant regulations of the sales contract;based on the Meaning Autonomous Principles and the elucidation of the meaning of the parties.At the time of the agreement is achieved,it is not responsible for clearing obligations;after the dealer is released,according to the Chinese civil law,the previous debt and the rights can be resurrected.In the "non-destroyed original debt" type,any party could not have the right to decide the priority to fulfilling,so that the interests of both parties are well protected,and it is also the correct understanding of the meaning of the parties;Under normal circumstances,the parties do not have the need to take the clear obligations,but when the original debt is the borrowing relationship and the contract is achieved the deadline of the ofiginal debt,then each party has the right to ask for the expose and criticize;the debtor’s illegal dinner is subject to debt contract contract,no It should be denied that the creditant shall bear the rights of default responsibility based on the new debt;The last part is the summaryof the article.Then,base on the analysis in previous,in response to the scholars ’ point of view that repayment of debts should be institutionalized,it is proposed that repayment of debts is not a loophole in the law,and that the nature of repayment contracts in practice is complex and diverse.There is no need to regulated this kind of contract as an independent legal system.