An Analysis On Dispute Between Branch A Of Shanghai Pudong Development Bank And Hunan M Company Over Financial Loans Contract

Under the circumstance of economic globalization and the increasingly fierce market economy competition,the buyer's market is gradually formed.Credit payment which leads to financial innovation emerging has become a major settlement,and factoring business appears in the public view.The factoring business in our country started relatively late,in contrast with the vigorous development of factoring business,it is not perfect in the laws and regulations of factoring business in our country.On the one hand,this contradiction makes it difficult to handle the case of the factoring contract dispute.On the other hand,it has created obstacles to the further development of factoring business.Most of the factoring business cases in our country are caused by flaws in receivables.It was usual to find the real relationship of factoring contracts that was not established in the cases of factoring contract disputes with untrue receivables,However,now there is a new view that invalidation of the basic transaction contract does not necessarily invalidate the factoring contract.However,if it is found that the factoring contract is valid,it is difficult to judge the relationship of rights and obligations in the cases.There are five disputes in the case of financial loan contract dispute between branch A of Shanghai Pudong Development Bank and Hunan M Company: the legal relationship between the seller and the factoring bank,the determination of the case,whether the factoring fee should be paid,buyer's responsibility,factoring bank's responsibility,guarantor's responsibility.According to "Contract Law","General Provisions of Civil Law" and relevant judicial explanation,and "General Rules of International Factoring",and related industry standards,the receivables are the core content of factoring business,the relationship of factoring business can not be established under the circumstance that the account receivable is not authentic,the seller should assume the responsibility of returning unjust enrichment.On the basis,according to "Tort Liability Act","Guatantee Law",etc,the scope of loss of the bank should be based on the actual amount of financing fund,facorting fees should not be supported;the buyer and the seller should bear the responsibility for the loss for different reasons,there is unreal joint and several liability between the seller and the buyer;the factoring bank should bear the corresponding responsibility because it didn't do enough to examine the project;claims do not disappear,the guarantor should still assume the guarantee responsibility.