On The Issue Of Cancellation Of Equity Transfer Contract By Installment Payment

As a kind of special installment sale contract,the installment contract in the equity transfer involves not only the field of contract law,but that of company law and administrative law,with strong commercial and administrative law icon.The installment,a new method to pay the price of share,has increasingly played an crucial role in the external transfer of equity.Taking the dispute about equity transfer between Changlong Tang and Shihai Zhou,this paper discusses the issue of the termination of the installment contract in the equity transfer.This paper comprises three parts:The first part presents the basic situation of the case,which focuses on three controversial legal questions: The first one is the nature of the installment contrast in equity transfer;The second one is that the application of Article 176 of "Contract Law";The third one is that how to recognize the delay in performance and reasonable urging in the cancellation of installment contrast in the equity transfer.The second part tries to analyze the three controversial legal questions mentioned above.First of all,this article tries to explore the nature of the installment in the equity transfer from the perspective of the duality of equity—property right and personal right,and it is indicated that the two should be considered separately and independently.Under the premise of that,it is possible to explain the nature from the aspect of civil law,including that the subject matter should be delivered at first and the price should be paid in small parts in a fixed period of time.Secondly,as for the application of Article 167 of the Contract Law,its applicable rules offer the seller a special protection,which is beyond the general statutory right of rescission provided for the General Principles of the Contract Law.As a result,it is conducive to protecting the interests of the seller.However,there are some obstacles in the judicial practice.With judicial interpretation issued by the Supreme Court,the legislative purpose is tilting towards the buyer.In addition,with the guiding case of 67 released by the Supreme Court,Article 167 is not applicable in the rescission of equity transfer contract,which further narrows the scope of its application.Thirdly,as for the recognition of the delay in performance and reasonable urging in the cancellation of installment contrast,this paper analyzes from two aspects,namely the debtors were delayed in performance and then the creditor gave them a reasonable urging time to perform.On this basis,the article will figure out how to clarify the delay and a reasonable reminder in the equity transfer.The third part focuses on the evaluation of judicial judgments on the case of equity transfer by installment payment.Based on the above-mentioned legal analyses,the author has given his own opinion on the guiding case of 67.At the same time,in the process of sorting out some typically related and similar cases,the author of this paper has remodeled the referee ideas in order to solve this type of problem.The fourth part emphasizes on the defects of the relevant legislation reflected by the dispute in this case.Through the exploration of the defects,the author of this paper puts forward his own opinion to perfect the relevant legislation.