| Business management was recognized as a way of financing by more and more enterprises,and became an important way of financing for small and medium-sized enterprises.With the prosperity of the management business,it often happened that the litigant swindled the capital of the operator by making up the accounts received.Through the analysis of the current situation of the court,it was obvious that there were a lot of subjects and a high rate of second trial in the case of fictional contract disputes in our country.Through the analysis of specific cases,the focus of the case mainly included the confirmation of the effectiveness of the contract,whether the creditor could refuse to repay the loan with the excuse of the unreality of the accounts received,and how to bear the responsibilities of the relevant parties under the effects of different contracts.In addition,in the fictional disputes over accounts,there were different standards for determining the effectiveness of the contract.Through the combination of theory and cases,this paper observed how the court would judge the effectiveness of the contract when the basic transaction was not real.It mainly studied the issue of making up accounts in the five parts.The first part mainly introduces the research background of this paper,the current research status of factoring business at home and abroad,and the research content,methods,innovation points and shortcomings of this paper.The second part was about the effect of the insurance contract when the accounts were made up.There was no unified standard for the judgment of the contract.The main reasons for the validity were:first,the insurance contract and the basic transaction contract were independent from each other,and their effectiveness would not affect each other;Second,whether the contract was valid or not depended on whether it met the necessary elements of the contract.According to the invalid theory,the premise of the validity of the contract was that there was a real basic transaction contract.If the basic transaction contract was deemed to be made up,the contract would be invalid because there was no real bond that could be transferred.The three parts discussed the responsibility of the creditor and the creditor.No matter the contract was invalid or effective,the amount of money that the creditor fabricated to deceive the financial manager might damage the property of the manager.If they failed to sign the contract because of the fictional basic transaction,the creditor would face the responsibility of negligent in signing the contract.In the process of making up the accounts received to swindle the funds from the agent,there were different opinions on whether the creditor should be responsible or not.She didn’t have to take any responsibility to claim that the plaintiff was not the other party to the contract and she wouldn’t take any responsibility.In other words,as long as the creditor participated in making up the accounts,it was a mistake and he should be responsible for the loss of the guardian.The fourth part was about the reasons for the exemption of the creditor and the creditor.When the guardian did not perform or did not fully perform his duty of review,it did not affect the effectiveness of the contract signed between the guardian and the creditor.However,it was a mistake for the guardian not to perform or to fully perform his duty of investigation.He should bear the corresponding responsibility for the loss he suffered,so the creditor and the creditor could be relieved to bear the corresponding responsibility.The fifth part puts forward specific suggestions for the research issues in the paper.Firstly,factoring contracts in the context of fictitious accounts receivable should be effective in principle;It also clarifies the applicable conditions for the debtor to assume responsibility in the case of fictitious accounts receivable and clarifies that the factoring person should perform the necessary formal review obligations when conducting factoring business. |
PDF Full Text Request