Methods Of Identification Of The Intention Expressed

Hong Kong businessmen Peng mou vs Shen mou mou certain ownership confirmed case, in November2007filed a lawsuit, in November2011the second trial retrial closed. After four years before, the CCTV and the domestic and foreign print media, online media reported, citing public opinion attention. The case first or second instance court in the factual findings made on substantially the same basis diametrically opposed judgments, Glaring. The case involving commission, agency two contracts. First or second instance and second instance court for retrial commission contracts are recognized valid first and second instance court for retrial recognized agency contract is invalid. This article intends to demonstrate entrustment contract also invalid.Commission contract becomes effective, should not only meet the special commission contract requirements must also meet the validity of the contract, the effectiveness of the general provisions of civil behavior. The real meaning of that is China’s "Civil Law"55to determine the conditions for entry into force of civil conduct, is one of the Civil Code "private autonomy" core spirit. This paper finds the case involving the real meaning of that sub-commission contract’s requirements.According to the meaning of that composite understanding between meaning and representation are inseparable not only in the meaning of that on a consistent basis, the two sides in order to achieve true consensus. But in the confusion the complex real world, due to a variety of factors, the parties and representation between the inner meanings of the situation is often inconsistent and therefore flawed system of civil law system represents interesting. Errors are defects in a situation.Errors and other defects in the identification of the nineteenth century, theorists have formed the meaning of doctrine, which means that doctrine, eclectic theory, and disputed for many years. In the thirties of last century, the formation of "recognizable" of theory, meaning in the framework of representation, from the inner meaning of the parties may be considered cognitive perspective means the combination of theory and judicial practice.By reason traceability, this paper can test from the meaning of that nature, meaning the identification methods represent the perspective of the meaning of that case Peng mou authenticity.Peng mou case, the judge finds meaning of that method for affecting the basic facts of the case identification, but also seriously affects the substantive rights of the parties. Other cases, a simple representation doctrine applies also greatly affect the substantive rights of the parties.In this connection, the paper from the legislative point of view of improving the Flaw system, introduce errors system through legislative means and for typical cases, and guide the establishment recognize civil areas identified intention rules. This article from the introduction, body, conclusion three parts. Where in the body has three parts. The first portion is intended to introduce the basic facts; cases focus and define scope of this article. The second part in explaining the meaning of that intention flaws, meaning of that error, the legal meaning of that principle finds, based on the analysis of whether the case constitutes the true meaning of that situation. The third part is a discussion of the previous text, based on the analysis of judicial practice focuses on trial represents humanitarian reasons, meaning that the Legislative Review of the shortcomings and put forward their own proposals.This innovation and shortcomings:This gratifying is that the use of case studies related to practical meaning of that case. Whether words are justified, for the case itself, is another point of thinking; against the law, are a beginner, with not too much recklessness and ignorance of civil core theory temptations; on their own, is an important legal experience and try and try to learn how to learn.This deficiency, one is identified on the meaning of that theory, China’s legislative and authoritative experts discussed much, did not form a representative theory, it is very limited data available for reference, plus I am beginner shallow, superficial understanding of the meaning of the concept, on the use of the concept tend to have a sense of confusion about disunity; theoretical combing force is even more humble difficult, lack of legal ability to control the language specification, although hard to follow, there are still mere copycat of regret. In addition, the article discusses the purpose of case analysis, so the introduction of the theory are obvious superficial enough Gain this analysis without such a detailed deep. Forgive me.