In order to purchase equipment, a township enterprise borrowed 300,000 yuan from the bank. The enterprise used its own tool car as collateral (the estimated price was 6,543,800 yuan+10,000 yuan) and the township finance office as guarantee. After the loan expires, the enterprise only returns 6.5438+0.5 million yuan, and the rest of the loan and interest cannot be paid. Therefore, the bank brought a lawsuit to the court, demanding that the township finance office bear joint and several repayment responsibilities. Q:

1. Should the township finance office be jointly and severally liable? Why?

2. How should the court handle this case?

3. If the guarantor is not the township finance office, but company B, but there is no guarantee method, what should I do?

Case 1

1. The township finance office should not be jointly and severally liable, because the township finance office is a state organ and cannot act as a guarantor, and its guarantee behavior is invalid, so it will not be jointly and severally liable.

2. The court should handle this case as follows: auction or sell off the tool car mortgaged by the enterprise, and repay the bank loan with the auction and sale money; If the payment is insufficient, the enterprise shall continue to pay off by other means.

3. If the guarantor is not the township finance office, but company B, then company B shall bear joint and several liability for guarantee. Because the "Guarantee Law" stipulates that if there is no agreement on the way of guarantee, the guarantor and the debtor shall be jointly and severally liable to the debtor. After the bank auctions or sells the tool company (collateral) to pay off part of the loan, the insufficient part can directly ask Company B to bear the repayment responsibility.

In order to promote sales, a fast food restaurant advertised in the mass media, and all customers who came to our restaurant during March 1 to March 15 1996 could get a surprise-a beautiful gift; If you want to know what the surprise is, please come to our restaurant for dinner within the above time. On March 12, the customer Wang's family came to the store for dinner and asked what gift they could get. They were told that they had to spend all the 50 yuan first, and then when they left the store, they would get a prize with a cash receipt. So the Wangs bought food worth 55 yuan. When they got the gift after dinner, they were told that the last gift had just been sent out and was gone. There was an argument between the two sides. The Wangs think that fast food restaurants cheat consumers, and the actual practice is inconsistent with advertisements; The clerk in the fast food restaurant thinks Wang is unlucky and eats too slowly. Advertising is only to attract customers, and it is not all true in itself. Q:

1. What provisions of the advertising law did the advertisement of this fast food restaurant violate?

2. What kind of responsibility should fast food restaurants take?

1. Fast food restaurants violate the principle that advertisements should be true. Although advertising is an invitation to offer, the advertising law clearly stipulates that false advertising is prohibited. In addition, China's Advertising Law also stipulates that the performance, origin, use, quality, price, producer, expiration date, content, form, quality, price and commitment of goods should be clear and clear; If the advertisement indicates that the sale of goods or the provision of services are accompanied by gifts, it shall indicate the variety and quantity of the gifts.

Fast food restaurants should bear civil liability to consumers, because they publish false advertisements, deceive consumers and infringe on their legitimate rights and interests. They can make up a gift and apologize to consumers. The behavior of fast food restaurants should also be punished by the administrative department for industry and commerce, which can take the form of ordering to stop advertising, publicly correcting, and fines.

1. The plaintiff Nanshan Sub-branch filed a lawsuit with the Provincial Higher People's Court for a dispute over the usufructuary right mortgage contract with the defendant Toyama Company.

The Provincial Higher People's Court found through trial that the defendant Toyama Company signed two loan contracts with the plaintiff Nanshan Sub-branch on June 1995 10, stipulating that Nanshan Sub-branch would lend Toyama Company RMB 6 10/00000 and USD 100000 respectively. At the same time, the two parties signed two mortgage contracts, stipulating that Toyama Company will guarantee the two loans with its management right and lease right to Toyama Underground Trade City (with an area of 654.38+100000 square meters). However, after the loan expired, Toyama Company could not repay the loan as agreed in the contract, so Nanshan Sub-branch filed a lawsuit.

It is also found that the Toyama Underground Trade City (area1178 square meters) is an underground facility built by the relevant departments of the People's Government of this Municipality. During the construction process, Taihe Jewelry Co., Ltd., the predecessor of the defendant Toyama Company, invested about 50 million yuan to participate in the construction. For this reason, the relevant departments of the Municipal People's Government issued a document to confirm that the property right of the facility belongs to the state, and Toyama Company enjoys the long-term use right, management right and lease right for the part put into construction. Because the obligee can't perform the debt, the relevant departments of the Municipal People's Government agree to transfer the long-term management right and lease right of Toyama Underground Trade City to others for exercise.

Q: (1) In this case, Toyama Company takes the long-term use and management right and lease right of Toyama Underground Trade City as collateral, which belongs to state-owned assets. Is this mortgage contract valid? Why?

(2) How to handle this case?

Solution: (1) The mortgage contract is valid. Because Toyama Company enjoys the long-term use right, management right and lease right of Toyama Underground Trade City, it is a kind of real right that can bring benefits to the obligee, and the result of exercising the right can completely achieve the purpose of ensuring the debt performance. Moreover, this kind of usufructuary right is used as mortgage, although the Guarantee Law does not expressly permit or prohibit it, the owners of Toyama Underground Trade City also agree to the transfer of usufructuary right caused by this mortgage. At the same time, the contract is a usufructuary right mortgage contract signed on the basis of voluntariness, fairness and equal compensation, and should be a valid contract.

(2) The defendant Toyama Company shall repay the plaintiff Nanshan Sub-branch the loan principal of RMB 6,654,380+and the interest of USD 6,543,800+within 10 days after this judgment comes into effect, and the interest during the effective period of this judgment shall be calculated according to the contract agreement of both parties. If the defendant Toyama Company fails to perform the judgment within the time limit, the usufructuary right of Toyama Underground Trade City mortgaged by Toyama Company will be discounted or compensated to Nanshan Sub-branch with the proceeds from auction and sale of usufructuary right. The case acceptance fee shall be borne by the defendant Toyama Company.

2. Zhujiang Company and Changjiang Company signed a machine tool sales contract on June 199965438+ 10/0. According to the contract, the price of a complete set of machine tools and equipment is 2.5 million yuan, and Changjiang Company shall deliver the goods and complete the installation and debugging before 1 2000. Pearl River Company shall pay all the price to the other party in one lump sum within 15 days after the installation and commissioning of Changjiang Company is completed, and either party shall pay 10% of the liquidated damages to the other party in case of breach of contract. The contract shall be notarized by the notary office after being signed and sealed by both parties. In order to ensure the timely payment by Zhujiang Company, both parties signed a mortgage contract in June 199965438+ 10/0, and an office building with a value of 5 million yuan was mortgaged by Zhujiang Company. 65438125 October, the mortgage registration was handled in the relevant departments. Before the formal delivery of Changjiang Company, Zhujiang Company thought that the price of machine tools was too high, that is, it requested Changjiang Company to reduce part of the price by telex. Considering the long-term cooperative relationship with the Pearl River Company, Changjiang Company agreed to reduce the original price by 10%, that is, 2.25 million yuan, and formally called back to reply. Changjiang Company delivered the goods on schedule and completed the installation and debugging. During its installation and debugging, the price of machine tools dropped sharply, and the Pearl River Company demanded to reduce the price again, but the Yangtze River Company did not agree. Therefore, the Pearl River Company refused to pay for the goods, and there was a dispute between the two sides. Changjiang Company sued the court, demanding that Zhujiang Company pay 2.5 million yuan and bear the liability for breach of contract. The court found that Zhujiang Company mortgaged the same office building to the bank for a loan of 3 million yuan, and registered the mortgage on 1999, 191October 20th. The appraised present value of the office building is RMB 4.5 million.

Question: (1) Can Changjiang Company ask Zhujiang Company to pay 2.5 million yuan? Why?

(2) If the office building of Zhujiang Company is auctioned, can Changjiang Company give priority to compensation? Why?

(3) How to decide this case? (difficult)

Solution: (1) can support. Because although the Pearl River Company put forward the demand for price reduction at the first time, although the Yangtze River Company made a formal reply and the Pearl River Company also confirmed it, because the contract between the two parties was notarized, the terms of the contract changed by both parties were not filed by the notary office and had no legal effect. Therefore, Changjiang Company's request to pay 2.5 million yuan can be supported.

(2) Can't give priority to compensation. According to the guarantee law, the same property is mortgaged to more than two creditors. After the mortgage contract is registered and becomes effective, it shall be paid off in the order of mortgage registration. Before the mortgage contract signed by Zhujiang Company and Changjiang Company was registered, Zhujiang Company and the bank signed a mortgage contract for the same property and registered it. Therefore, the realized value of the office building should repay the principal and interest of the bank loan. The remaining part is used to repay the creditor's rights of Changjiang Company, and Changjiang Company has the right to obtain compensation for the remaining part.

(3) The Pearl River Company was ordered to pay the Changjiang Company 2.5 million yuan and the penalty was 250,000 yuan. Repay the principal and interest of the bank loan with the realized value of the mortgaged office building, and the rest will be used to repay the creditor's rights of Changjiang Company. The insufficient part shall be repaid separately by Zhujiang Company.