Analysis Of The Contract Dispute On Transfer Of The Right To The Use Of State-Ownedl Land Between Jiahetai Company And Taizhong Company

This article is based on the contract dispute on transfer of the right to the use ofthe State-Owned land between Taizhong Company and Jiahetai Company, anddiscusses the validity of unauthorized disposition and the effectiveness of maliciouscollusion behavior. Both of them are the frequent phenomenon of social life.Recognizing and processing them in a right way is very important to the economydevelopment. This article focuses on the two elements: firstly, the validity ofunauthorized disposition and come to the conclusion that the unauthorized dispositionis invalid; secondly, the constitutive requirements and the effectiveness of themalicious collusive, and put forward a opinion that malicious collusion should bejudged by presumption.This article has four parts to verify the author's viewpoints step by step.In the first part, This paper discusses the basic situation of the case. In March26,2002, Taizhong Company and Jiahetai Company signed a agreement. In thisagreement they decisided to develop a land which covered an area of about64.5acresand located in Taiyuan city and State Road West Lane48. When they signed theagreement, that land was still owned by the state, so the Taizhong Company did nothave the right to use state-owned land. In September24,2002, the TaizhongCompany signed a transfer contract with Taiyuan City Land Resources Bureau andgot the right to use state-owned land. In2002December, Taizhong Company andJiahetai Company signed an another agreement about the same land. Then they havesome disputes in the validity between the two contracts.In the second part, the author introduces the focus of controversy of this case andthe judgment of the court. The focus of controversy of this case is that there were twodifferent contracts between the same object. We need to judge which one is effectiveand which one should be performed. Both of the court of first instance and the court of second instance think the first contract is effective. The court of first instance thinksome terms of the second contract were invalid, because they will reduce revenue.But the court of second instance thinks the second contract do not change the rightsand obligations of both parties, so Its effectiveness remained in registration. Both ofthem think the first contract shall be identified the basis of the rights and obligationsof the parties.In the third part, the author analyzes the focus of controversy of this case. In thefirst part, the author firstly discusses the effectiveness of the first contract; secondlyintroduces three theories of the validity of unauthorized disposition; thirdlyintroduces the validity of unauthorized disposition under systems of debtmeaninglism, property right, formalism, and debt formalism, then come to aconclusion that the validity of unauthorized disposition is determined by whether theeffect of juristic act of real right change will directly lead to the occurrence. In thesecond part, the author clarifies the concept, the effectiveness and the constitutiverequirements of the malicious collusive contract. And the author determines theeffectiveness of the second contract.In the fourth part, the author introduced the judicial practice enlightenment ofthe case. Firstly, the author thinks that the unauthorized disposition contract iseffective, this is coordinate with the principle of relativity of contract, andconvergence with the system of bona fide acquisition, and provides more sufficientprotection to a bona fide third party. Secondly, the author suggests using constructivemanner to judge malicious collusion in order to reduce the difficulty of proof ofplaintiff.