Research On Validity Of Contracts Of Buying Houses In Another Name

Housing is vital to people's livelihood, as well as to the stability of the state and the society. Civil disputes caused by the housing problems can not be ignored. In recent years, due to the rapid rise of the housing price, the government has published a series of price regulation and control policy to stable the price. But, driven by the interests, a lot of people take various means to avoid the policy, such as borrowing names to purchase houses. However, there is only a little literature concerning this issue, in which the research is insufficient in depth as well. Meanwhile in the judicial practice, there are no uniform guidelines for the judge to make a judgment, which consequently leads to the phenomenon of ‘similar cases with different referees', and seriously damages the judicial authority. Therefore, this article tries to give a deep analysis on the structure, nature and judge standard of “borrowing names to purchase houses”, which finally provides a reasonable and feasible path to judge the effectiveness of this behavior.This paper is consisted of 3 parts:In the 1st part, I summarize the clauses of all kinds of contracts of buying house in another name and work out some characters of them. With the characters as a base, I come up with an opinion says “a contract of buying house in another name is a compound contract which contains a contract of using another name and a sale contract”. And then, I find out the contract of using another name is actually a kind of commission contract after analyzing the legal characters of these two kinds of contracts.Finally, according to the principles of contract law, I regard the contract of buying house in another name as some simultaneous contract. Instead of ascertain its validity simply, we should consider the validity of the contract of buying house in another name in all because of the dependence relationship between these two kinds of contracts it contains. But we can simplify the question to the validity of the contract of using another name since most disputes are about the validity of this kind.The second part is mainly illustrates the approach of efficacy judge and its conclusion on contract of “borrowing names to purchase houses”. In this part, the writer basing on the oneby-one analysis of the 52 nd clause of the Contract Law thinks that the contract of “borrowing names to purchase houses” has no effect under its damage to the public interests of society. However, whether the contract has damaged the social interests cannot be lumped together, which should be analyzed in categories based on differed reasons of contract of “borrowing names to purchase houses” to be identified respectively. Through the detailed dissertation, this paper summarized that the contracts to evade the home-purchase restrictions and to buy economically affordable housing are recognized as invalid contract, the contracts signed to evade debts are revocable, and the ones signed to avoid the loan restriction are effective.The third part elaborates the judge principle and its specific ways of sales contract's efficacy after the contract of “borrowing names to purchase houses” being decided to be invalid. According to the autonomy of will, if the agreement on which the sales contract is based is invalid, the sales contract also ought to be regarded invalid. However, this approach is not good at trust protection for sellers. Thus, under the theory of right appearance, when the seller has goodwill for the contract with no fault, contract mandatory effectiveness should be applied to affirm the efficacy of the sales contract; on the contrary, the sales contract should be decided invalid. After verifying the effectiveness state of the contract of “borrowing names to purchase houses” and its sales contract, the responsible can take responsibilities according to their differed degrees of faults.