Limitation Of Action In Invalid Contracts

Invalid contract is absolutely invalid and is not legally binding from the beginning.

The provisions on invalid contracts embodied in China's contract law are embodied in articles fifty-second, fifty-sixth, fifty-seventh, 58 and 59, but there are no provisions on limitation of action.

Therefore, whether the invalid contract involves the limitation of action has become a controversial issue. The author also tries to talk about his superficial understanding, which is intended to throw bricks into the jade.

The other is the handling of related matters after the confirmation of invalid contracts, including requesting the return of property, compensation for loss, and return of property to the state and the return of collective or third party.

If the parties want to make a remedy through confirming the invalid contract, we must first claim the invalid confirmation of the contract before we can request the return of the property and compensation for the loss.

Therefore, the limitation of action in invalid contract is reflected in three aspects: whether the confirmation of invalid contract is limited by limitation of action, how to determine the limitation of action and the right of claim arising from the confirmation of the contract.

The pragmatic parties hold affirmative attitude towards the confirmation of invalid contracts, and this affirmative view holds that invalid contracts are illegality, and the parties to contracts should be aware of the illegality of their actions.

The 137th provision of the general principles of civil law stipulates that the limitation of actions shall be counted from the time when the parties know or should know that their rights are infringed.

According to the provisions of the article, the affirmation of the invalidity of the contract also has limitation of action.

Therefore, confirming the invalidity of a contract shall be limited by limitation of action.

II.

As for "affirmation", although the law does not provide specific provisions, but there are corresponding legal basis, and also in line with the legislative principles of the limitation of action system, the author, as a judicial practitioner, agrees with the affirmation that the confirmation of invalid contracts should be limited by limitation of action.

Therefore, the provisions on limitation of action in the general principles of civil law shall be followed in the contract law.

Therefore, the confirmation of invalid contracts should apply to the provisions on limitation of action in the general principles of civil law, and the claim that it is not limited by limitation of action is neither legal nor legal.

The eighty-seventh provision of the criminal law of China stipulates: "crimes are no longer prosecuted through the following periods: (1) the maximum statutory penalty is a term of imprisonment of less than five years, after five years; (two) the maximum statutory penalty is five years or less, and the imprisonment for less than ten years has passed ten years; (three) the maximum statutory penalty is more than ten years of imprisonment; after fifteen years, (four) the maximum statutory sentence is life imprisonment and death penalty, after a period of four years.

If it is necessary to prosecute twenty years later, it must be submitted to the Supreme People's Procuratorate for approval. "

Accordingly, the state has intervened and punished for the most serious illegal acts, and there is a time limit for prosecution. Beyond this period, except for the maximum penalty is life imprisonment and the death penalty considers it necessary to prosecute, the remaining criminal acts will no longer pursue their criminal liability, that is to say, the criminal penalties that should be given to the offense should be waived.

The twenty-ninth provision of the administrative punishment law stipulates that "if an illegal act has not been discovered within two years, no administrative penalty will be imposed."

However, the invalid contract is invalid because of the illegality of the contract itself, but it belongs to the category of civil violation. The seriousness of its violation is far less than that of the criminal law. The state stipulates the limitation of prosecution for the most serious criminal offenses, and it will give up its responsibility when it exceeds the limitation of prosecution.

If we think that the confirmation of invalid contract is not limited by limitation of action, then there is a problem. After two years and the crime of capital punishment, the crime of administrative offense will not be prosecuted by law for twenty years. Only the confirmation of invalid contract is not limited by limitation of action. It will always be punished by law, which is obviously against the principle of unity and coordination in the theory of legal system.

Therefore, the intervention of invalid contracts should be limited by limitation of action.

However, this view is one-sided.

As we all know, everything has opposite side. It is precisely because the invalid contract is illegality, it will also cause the legitimate rights and interests to be infringed, but the object is not only limited to the other party, but also the state, the collective or the third party.

Since the legitimate rights and interests are infringed, it is entirely possible to exercise the right of protection after knowing or knowing.

If the confirmation of the invalid contract is not limited by time limit, the infringer can claim the contract invalid at any time, and he may exercise the right of protection after knowing or knowing that the right has been infringed two years. This is obviously inconsistent with the provisions on limitation of action in the general principles of the civil law.

However, this view ignores the most important point -- confirming the purpose of void contracts.

According to the difference of the request body, confirming the invalidation of the contract can be divided into two cases: one is the contract party's request to confirm the contract invalid, the two is the third party's request to confirm the contract invalid.

For the parties to a contract, the purpose of the confirmation of the contract is not to fail to fulfill the contract or to continue to perform the contract and to recover the loss. For the third party to confirm the contract is invalid, it is because the contract damages its interests, and by confirming the contract is invalid, so as to achieve the purpose of protecting its legitimate rights and interests.

If we simply request to confirm that the contract is null and void and do not involve other claims, then confirming the invalidation of the contract will not have any effect, nor will it have any impact on the claimant and the relative party. Obviously, it has lost the significance of confirming its validity.

Therefore, the request to confirm the invalidation of the contract is not only to confirm the validity of the contract but also to the requesting party's claim to protect the legitimate rights and interests of the entity through the confirmation of the invalidity of the contract.

It can be seen that the confirmation of invalid contract still belongs to the claim of substantive meaning, and it also conforms to the limitation of action.

In fact, there is no need to refute this view. Those with a little legal knowledge should be considered nonsense.

As mentioned earlier, the criminal prosecution has a deadline for prosecution. If we exceed the time limit for prosecution, we will no longer pursue its criminal responsibility. At this point, do we think that criminal acts become legal?

The answer is, of course, "no". The criminal offence is no longer held criminally responsible. It is based on the fact that it has exceeded the time limit for prosecution, instead of being pformed into a lawful act.

In the case of general tort cases, the litigant has been injured due to unlawful infringement. If the obligee does not claim the right during the limitation period, the people will no longer protect the legitimate rights and interests of the infringed party and thus lose the right to win the lawsuit. We also can not believe that the infringer has not taken the corresponding responsibility because his infringement has become a legal act.

Therefore, breaking the law is always illegal. Even if it is not investigated and interfered, its nature will not change. The confirmation of invalid contract is limited by limitation of action and will not cause changes in the nature of the contract. This idea is totally unfounded.