The Sale And Purchase Contract Transfer Dispute Agreement Jurisdiction Research

Agreement jurisdiction is the legal act on the basis of the principle of will autonomy, which belongs to the empowerment act of the lawsuit. The nature of the agreement jurisdiction is a litigation contract, which can not only interpret the agreement jurisdiction system by the substantive law, but also must think from the perspective of procedural law. Jurisdiction is the judicial service provided by the state, which are of scarcity on the resource. And through the game in advance, the parties reach a consensus under the settlement of the disputing, thus facilitating the improvement of litigation efficiency. Through investigating and comparing the system of agreement jurisdiction in Chinese, EU, Germany and Chinese Taiwan, it can be seen that the substantive law and procedural law will face many problems in the jurisdiction agreement of the disputing of contract transfer. Among them, the selection of cause of action and strategies of litigation could have great influences on the jurisdiction agreement.In the investigating of the disputing for contract transfer under the jurisdiction agreement, it is necessary to distinguish between civil cases and civil lawsuits. In this paper, agreement jurisdiction will be made in depth discussions, combined with some civil lawsuits. And this paper points out the existence of the main problems for China's agreement jurisdiction system:for the validity of jurisdiction agreement, the judgment of basic standard is not clear; the regulations of formal elements are too simplex in jurisdiction agreement; the connotation of "Lex loci solution "has some controversy; the system of tacit declaration is ambiguous; and the right of defense for debtors is incomplete in the contract of transfer. To improve the agreement jurisdiction system further in our country, we must, first and foremost, identify its judgment of basic standard and deal well with its relations with level jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction. Secondly, we should enrich its formal elements and identify its range of choosing court. Thirdly, in litigant cases, we must standardize these problems that the parties choose courts through the jurisdiction agreement, and impose the interpretation obligations to the judge who are in the jurisdiction of tacit declaration. Finally, with a view of balance of litigious right to the parties, one should empower debtors who are in the disputing of contract transfer to enjoy the right of defense in litigation.