Study On The Relatively Ineffective Juristic Acts

Because the evaluation of juristic acts is complex, it is very important to do different evaluation to the different juristic acts parties. The invalidity of juristic acts can be divided into two states of absolute invalidity and relatively ineffective. Generally speaking, the distinction of absolute invalidity and relatively ineffective is whether it is valid to against bona fide third or not. In theory, there is a view that the juristic concept is relatively ineffective juristic acts, because the effect is relative. This definition of the relatively ineffective juristic behavior is equivalent to a juristic act may be revoked. Another definition is the juristic act was invalid only for the specific consequences of the parties. Only certain people are able to claim the contract is invalid relative, not everyone can claim that the contract is invalid. Based on this understanding, this paper discussed the relative void of juristic actions. In addition to the introduction and conclusion, this article as a whole is divided into four parts.In the first part, this paper discussed the difference between absolute and relative invalid is the range of invalid in theory. Where a person claims juristic action may be absolutely null and void as an invalid, the invalid can be bona fide third person. Only by certain people, the juristic act could be claimed invalid as relatively ineffective, and its juristic effect is only occurred between the parties, while the bona fide third party is still valid. However, this distinction ignored the juristic norms for their own purposes. Such as when a specific protection was established before the invalid juristic act, the third party shall have the rights to question the effectiveness of the juristic act. The paper also analyzes the juristic acts on comparative law relatively ineffective, that is, in the German law is the disposition of the relatively ineffective. Judge the difference from the respect of the interests protected by juristic norms, violation of specific juristic acts of the parties entered into separate and special interests, the juristic acts should be relatively ineffective. On the basis of the nature of juristic norms, the law regulate the relationship between the interests of the adjustment of the different types of specifications will be divided into arbitrary norms of civil law, a party authorized to regulate, authorize a third person specification, semi-mandatory standards and mandatory regulation. The characteristics of third person authorized specification are related to the interests of third party in terms of juristic acts establishment and implementation. The reasons lead to relatively ineffective should be authorized by a specific third party’s juristic norms. According to the nature of juristic norms and protection purposes, a valid juristic reasons only for the protection of the interests of third parties, and not involved with the case of public interest. The particular third party is authorized to determine whether to claim juristic act is invalid according to their own interests.In the third part, this paper listed the typical types of relatively ineffective, such as the act of transfer property in debt security, disposition of collateral security act, and the behavior of pre-emptive rights against the lessee. Generally, the juristic norms and the protection nature of the regulation of such acts were not involved the public interest, it limited to the specific interests of a third person. In fact this type of juristic norms can be understood as the mandate of a specific third person specification. Some relevant judicial precedents analyses were combined in this paper. Judicial interpretation has made changes of the behavior of pre-emptive rights against the lessee, however, it does not affect we analyze how the tenant’s right of first refusal may be more favorable protected in the point of relatively ineffective, or provide a counter-example to discuss the juristic consequences of relatively ineffective.The fourth part discussed the generalization of relatively ineffective. On the one hand, it reflects how to determine who have the right of claim relatively ineffective. In practice, only for the particular juristic third party have the right to advocate relatively ineffective. The third party bases on the protection of nature of juristic norms and the trust-based protection shall be different, mainly reflected in the time of establishment. Such as the interests of specific protection of the third set up earlier, and with the establishment of a juristic act is invalid because in the latter. The rights advocates relatively ineffective should be limited within a certain time. On the other hand, third party may abandon the right to question the validity of juristic acts, making the relatively ineffective juristic acts translated into effective juristic action. It is important to make sure whether the juristic norm is authorized third person specification or not.